And Show Us Your Rare Sheaffer's

[david i]

To David's comment, I don't consider the Autograph a variant of the III, that's part of the quote from Jim Mamoulides' website.

 

I believe i did not cite the quote as yours. Further, the source of the quote is not relevant. The content and context relevant. If one is to cite a source for a quote as if said source lends credibility to the information contained, one should ascertain that the source of said quote has some evidence for his belief. Otherwise, we just pass along hearsay.

 

As for Daniel's comment about confusion among collectors, Richard Binder's website lists the VI, VII and VIII as follows:

 

PFM VI Gold-filled cap and barrel, 14K gold nib[1]

 

PFM VII Plastic barrel, 14K gold cap, 14K gold nib[1]

 

PFM VIII (Masterpiece) 14K gold cap and barrel, 14K gold nib[2]

 

Indeed, one must consider whether Richard's website further contributes to- rather than reduces- confusion on this matter. Of course, that i am typing from the bed in the back bedroom at Stately Binder Manor in Nashua after the Boston Pen Show means that by saying this i will have to watch what they feed me for breakfast this morning.

 

But, citing Richard's website- as with citing JIm's- is unhelpful if one does not have information that those website's base their information on any hard data, vs on speculation or on retrospective nomenclature lumping. And, if the authors of those website actually have taken the proper steps to note their own mixing of modern lumping of jargon or of speculative use of old nomenclature, then citing those sources with an implication they are authoritative about something about which they themselves cite their own LACK of authority... is... unhelpful.

 

Indeed, if as you say regarding Richard...

 

He then offers notes 1 and 2 explaining the rather thin ice each pen model number rests on, the VIII almost certainly being a jeweler's pen and none of the three actually being known to exist as a Sheaffer model. And yet there they are in books listed by Richard. At least when I call the Autograph a model VI we all know it exists and really is the sixth model of pen. It don't get much better than that.

 

Richard apparently does note then that little basis in Sheaffer literature exists for *his* schema regarding PFM labelling. Indeed, it would be prudent to inquire what evidence exists that the PFM VIII is a "jeweler's pen"/

 

Hearsay and the passing on of hobby myths.

 

Furthermore, that "they are in books" means little if the books are based on non-information.

 

That the Autograph is a 6th model of PFM seems poor reason to call it a PFM- VI, as this conflates observations with formal names. PFM I-V are formal names for models provided by Sheaffer. One could say that the first model PFM is the most pricey with gold fill cap and that this is the oen Sheaffer called PFM V. "First", "Fifth" and "Sixth" are descriptors. PFM I-V are names. The sixth model Sheaffer called the Autograph (assuming we have some evidence for that. I don't recall offhand). Sheaffer did not call the sixth model a PFM VI.

 

Indeed, i now realize that i own a bunch of PFM X's at home. These tenth-plus models strangely enough are thin models of PFM. Some price tags say Saratoga on them. Much better to sell a thin PFM than have to sell a plain ol' snorkel next time on ebay ;-)

 

At least when I call the Autograph a model VI we all know it exists and really is the sixth model of pen. It don't get much better than that.

 

I disagree. I think the PFM I is the sixth model down the rung of price and value. That Sheaffer called it the PFM I doesn't invalidate my viewing it as a sixth model. "Sixth Model" is subjective. "PFM II" or "PFM IV" or imagined "PFM VI" would be definitive.

 

david

Edited April 16, 2007 by david i

[Guest PeteWK]

David, have you been drinking tonight? You're starting to sound a lot like whats his name. I don't see your point of arguing with Jim and Richard in a post directed toward me. You and I both know that I through V are what they are, Sheaffer Model Numbers. There are five of them and the first one is the basic model while the fifth one is the model with a gold cap. There's one more hanging out there. It happens to be the sixth one. Hmm, I wonder what common sense would dictate it be called? Let's see . . . Well, I'll have to think about it and get back to you. Six Six Six hmmmm, very difficult. . . .

 

PeteWK

Edited April 16, 2007 by PeteWK

[david i]

David, have you been drinking tonight? You're starting to sound a lot like whats his name. I don't see your point of arguing with Jim and Richard in a post directed toward me. You and I both know that I through V are what they are, Sheaffer Model Numbers. There are five of them and the first one is the basic model while the fifth one is the model with a gold cap. There's one more hanging out there. It happens to be the sixth one. Hmm, I wonder what common sense would dictate it be called? Let's see . . . Well, I'll have to think about it and get back to you. Six Six Six hmmmm, very difficult. . . .

 

PeteWK

 

I don't see your point of arguing with Jim and Richard in a post directed toward me.

 

First, i do not direct any post at you, per se.

 

Rather, i direct my post at the issues you raise about pens.

 

Second, i don't argue with Jim and Richard.

 

Rather, I address points about pens they raise in their websites, at least as cited by you in your prior posts.

 

Third, if inclined to explain "why" i "argue", i'd note interest in clarifying termiinology about vintage pens, note that you raised several issues about such terminology, note further that you cited two websites as evidence in said discussion, and note further still that i happen to have doubts about the information reportedly appearing in those websites belonging to Richard and to Jim. All this seems good reason post counter points.

 

You're starting to sound a lot like whats his name.

 

Who do you think taught him to sound that way <_<

 

David, have you been drinking tonight?

 

Apparently not nearly enough.

 

You and I both know that I through V are what they are, Sheaffer Model Numbers.

 

Putting aside that i would have to go back to my catalog and see if they are model numbers along lines of Gh8Tc (made up) or other model numbers as seen for earlier pens, if the PFM labels indeed are model numbers they are model numbers that also are formal and descriptive titles... model names. Parker made many standard sized Vacumatic pens, but only one (or so) is formally called the Vacumatic Standard by Parker. To call other pens of same size by same name is inelegant and imprecise. I object to that when i see it.

 

There are five of them and the first one is the basic model while the fifth one is the model with a gold cap.

 

There are five models NAMED PFM I-V. There is one model not named as part of that series. There further is a hobby history of asserting that several PFM's whose NAMES involve numbers greater than V exist with various degrees of fancier trim. There appears to be no evidence for such pens or for such nomenclature as used by Sheaffer. In view of that, i view the use of PFM VI as a muddling and distracting choice of jargon. It is this to which i object, and thus object to its appearance at any particular website or in any particular post. I remain uncertain why the posting of this point by me would require the need by one who disagrees to invoke drinking as explanation for position?

 

Hmm, I wonder what common sense would dictate it be called? SNIP mmm, very difficult. . . .

 

Common sense has dictated the world is flat, that housing prices never can go down, that women are less smart than men as on average their smaller bodies house smaller brains, that tulip bulbs are the best investment on earth. Common ground no doubt for common sense in this scenario

 

On less sardonic note, a great deal of the philosophical divide on this comes down to beliefs regarding use of original jargon. Perhaps times exist when dispensing with original pen company nomenclature is necessary to avoid confusion for the modern collector. I believe this rarely is true. More often attempts to educate ourselves about original nomenclature and context is the better path. When retrospective jargon not only disconnects from original descriptions, but further serves to muddle the picture or even to add to erroneous mythology- in this case that PFM's with numbers > V were produced and catalogued- i believe it is better to avoid such jargon altogether. Citing websites as evidence, when those websites indeed have no evidence for said position, does not add to the strength of the case for imprecise or erroneous use of jargon. To do so is to pass along hearsay.

 

Or... it's not about you and me. It is about the issues.

 

best regards

 

d

Edited April 16, 2007 by david i

[Richard]

Based on evidence I now have in hand, I have revised my PFM profile to reflect more accurately the mythical status of the PFM VI, VII, and VIII (Masterpiece). The PFM I through PFM V are named, catalogued models, not simply serially assigned numbers; hence, the Autograph is not, and must not become, known as the "PFM VI."

 

The pen below is not a PFM VIII. It is a PFM with a barrel overlay, and some people have mistakenly assumed that this overlay made the pen a PFM VIII. It should be noted that European overlays, both British and Continental, are not an uncommon phenomenon and that the existence of such a pen does not magically make that pen into a catalogued model.

 

http://vacumania.com/penteech/sheafferPFMgoldspread.jpg

Edited April 16, 2007 by Richard

[kirchh]

As for Daniel's comment about confusion among collectors, Richard Binder's website lists the VI, VII and VIII as follows:

 

PFM VI Gold-filled cap and barrel, 14K gold nib[1]

 

PFM VII Plastic barrel, 14K gold cap, 14K gold nib[1]

 

PFM VIII (Masterpiece) 14K gold cap and barrel, 14K gold nib[2]

 

He then offers notes 1 and 2 explaining the rather thin ice each pen model number rests on, the VIII almost certainly being a jeweler's pen and none of the three actually being known to exist as a Sheaffer model. And yet there they are in books listed by Richard.

 

Can you explicitly state what your point is here? What bearing does any of that have on your misleading, unqualified use of a private, made-up model name for a pen that already has an official model name?

 

I will point out that Richard's discussion make it absolutely clear that the model names he cites are drawn from one particular book (not books); given the potential confusion of using the model names without qualification, he rightly explains the source of the information so the reader is fully informed about the origins of the nomenclature with respect to his presentation.

 

As to the embedded notion that if no examples of a certain pen have ben found, one is therefore free to re-use the model name of that pen for a different pen, I find that principle puzzling, to say the least.

 

At least when I call the Autograph a model VI we all know it exists and really is the sixth model of pen. It don't get much better than that.

 

Oh, it gets far better than that, of course. For example, if it were established collector convention, it would be much better than an unqualified use of a private made-up name, though that would still not be ideal (no pun intended). And if it were a Sheaffer model designation -- like, say, "Autograph" -- it would indeed be much better than that. In fact, I would say that inventing a new name for a model that already has a useful, widely-known official name, and using the new name (which is of a form that *appears* to be an official name) without qualification...well, in my opinion, it doesn't get much worse than that.

 

There is so much misinformation, confusion, myth, and error in our hobby. I urge all to take care not to perpetuate such information, and certainly not to introduce freshly-minted examples.

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

You're starting to sound a lot like whats his name.

I agree; David is engaging in cogent, thorough, well-reasoned discussion (albeit a bit wordy). That's exactly the productive sort of discourse that benefits the hobby, and I hope we see more of it here.

 

--Daniel

[david i]

Can you explicitly state what your point is here? What bearing does any of that have on your misleading, unqualified use of a private, made-up model name for a pen that already has an official model name?

 

Man, i thought i was being harsh.

 

d

 

[kirchh]

There are five of them and the first one is the basic model while the fifth one is the model with a gold cap. There's one more hanging out there. It happens to be the sixth one. Hmm, I wonder what common sense would dictate it be called? Let's see . . . Well, I'll have to think about it and get back to you. Six Six Six hmmmm, very difficult. . . .

 

PeteWK

Common sense would dictate that it would be called what its maker called it.

 

"Autograph".

 

--Daniel

[Univer]

Here's a very nice White Dot Roseglow with the fishscale cap band. In the top image, it's shown below another very nice non-White Dot Roseglow set, this one featuring the jeweler's cap band. The middle and bottom images show the fishscale pen on its own.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

[Univer]

Hi All,

 

Well, I didn't expect to be posting again in this thread today, but a package of value arrived this afternoon from our esteemed Dennis Lively. Included therein was the pen you see here: a Black-and-Pearl Petite Balance (hope I've got the nomenclature right!) with the double cap band. It is now reunited with its mate: the pencil that comprises the other half of the set.

 

I'm posting to say a public 'thank you' to Dennis for his spectacular restoration job on this pen. To say that this little fellow "had some work done" would be in the nature of a drastic understatement. Let's just say...its presence here in such presentable form is something of a miracle. Amazing work!

 

The top image shows the pen and pencil together. Below is a close-up of the cap band detail.

 

If you like, check out the Esterbrook Forum -- for part two.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

[Guest PeteWK]

Here are some of my more recently acquired Targas. I'm really fond of the spirals, but the others are pretty nice too.

 

 

 

 

Hi Bill. Are you aware of any more Black Spiral Targa Variations out there? What kind of trim is on yours?

 

PeteWK

[penpalace]

Can you explicitly state what your point is here? What bearing does any of that have on your misleading, unqualified use of a private, made-up model name for a pen that already has an official model name?

 

Man, i thought i was being harsh.

 

d

 

 

Hi to the Sheaffer bunch! First of all nice pen purchase Pete, I missed bidding on it by a second or two, I guess that's what I get for trying to snipe myself and not using software to do the job for me...

 

On a side note while the fight was going on about marking and such, and what the pen is, a PFM VI? Well I was always told thats what it was until I got a set. Sadly I needed to sell some stuff a year or two ago and decided to part with it. It did have chalk markings and was clearly marked PFM III AUTO, so despite the end having the metal piece as a PFM V would have for example it was clearly marked as a III on the barrel, and regardless of what we would like to call it if Sheaffer called it a III AUTO then I guess that's what were forced to call it by. I am going to attempt to attach a picture or two if I can find them. (found only one at this point and it's not great)

 

Pearce.

 

[sexauerw]

Here are some of my more recently acquired Targas. I'm really fond of the spirals, but the others are pretty nice too.

 

 

 

 

Hi Bill. Are you aware of any more Black Spiral Targa Variations out there? What kind of trim is on yours?

 

PeteWK

Hi Pete,

As far as I know, all Black Spiral Targas have gold trim, certainly both of mine do. My full-size one has no gold trim at the end of the barrel, it's all black there. I've seen photos of at least one other similar pen that has a gold (or perhaps brass) end like my slim model. If I remember correctly it was Tom Levien's pen. That's the only variation that I've seen. (But I certainly don't claim to have seen everything!)

[Guest PeteWK]

Can you explicitly state what your point is here? What bearing does any of that have on your misleading, unqualified use of a private, made-up model name for a pen that already has an official model name?

 

Man, i thought i was being harsh.

 

d

 

 

Hi to the Sheaffer bunch! First of all nice pen purchase Pete, I missed bidding on it by a second or two, I guess that's what I get for trying to snipe myself and not using software to do the job for me...

 

On a side note while the fight was going on about marking and such, and what the pen is, a PFM VI? Well I was always told thats what it was until I got a set. Sadly I needed to sell some stuff a year or two ago and decided to part with it. It did have chalk markings and was clearly marked PFM III AUTO, so despite the end having the metal piece as a PFM V would have for example it was clearly marked as a III on the barrel, and regardless of what we would like to call it if Sheaffer called it a III AUTO then I guess that's what were forced to call it by. I am going to attempt to attach a picture or two if I can find them. (found only one at this point and it's not great)

 

Pearce.

 

 

 

Very cool indeed. I'm very pleased to stand corrected. It looks like everybody involved in the discussion is corrected.

 

PeteWK

 

[Guest PeteWK]

Here are some of my more recently acquired Targas. I'm really fond of the spirals, but the others are pretty nice too.

 

 

 

 

Hi Bill. Are you aware of any more Black Spiral Targa Variations out there? What kind of trim is on yours?

 

PeteWK

Hi Pete,

As far as I know, all Black Spiral Targas have gold trim, certainly both of mine do. My full-size one has no gold trim at the end of the barrel, it's all black there. I've seen photos of at least one other similar pen that has a gold (or perhaps brass) end like my slim model. If I remember correctly it was Tom Levien's pen. That's the only variation that I've seen. (But I certainly don't claim to have seen everything!)

 

 

 

 

Hi Bill and thanks for the reply. The reason I ask is that I have one heading my way in the mail and it has the gold trim piece or pieces on the end. Its the full size model. I'll post better pictures for you when I get it.

 

PeteWK

[Guest PeteWK]

Also, I was wondering if you've ever heard of or seen these Jewelry collection Targas? They were $1000, $1000 and 1675 for the various FP models.

 

Regards,

 

PeteWK

[Guest PeteWK]

I got delivery today of a rare bird purchased on eBay late last week. Its a Sheaffer Balance Masterpiece. Its properly marked Sheaffer's and has the correct period font for the 14k hallmarks so I'm quite certain it isn't a jeweler's pen. The strange thing is that the feed and nib just seem to be 7 or 8 years later than the body and clip style. The clip screams 1932-1934 but I expected to find a flat feed and numbered Lifetime nib. I'm left wondering if the jewelry department at Sheaffer's lived on another planet with a different set of realities. That would figure as their production was low, costly and therefore specialized.

 

PeteWK

Edited April 24, 2007 by PeteWK

[Guest PeteWK]

And the feed / clip combo picture.

[yu_bh]

Hi Petewk.

I thought we are looking at same ebay and you are definitely finding some more GREAT STUFF in it! how?

 

Yu

[kirchh]

I got delivery today of a rare bird purchased on eBay late last week. Its a Sheaffer Balance Masterpiece. Its properly marked Sheaffer's and has the correct period font for the 14k hallmarks so I'm quite certain it isn't a jeweler's pen. The strange thing is that the feed and nib just seem to be 7 or 8 years later than the body and clip style. The clip screams 1932-1934 but I expected to find a flat feed and numbered Lifetime nib. I'm left wondering if the jewelry department at Sheaffer's lived on another planet with a different set of realities. That would figure as their production was low, costly and therefore specialized.

 

PeteWK

This is the typical configuration of the all-gold Balance-style pen. Sheaffer used this clip style on 14K pens they sold well into the 1940s.

 

In general, one should be cautious about assigning bracketed time periods (e.g. 1932-1934) to pen models or features, because it is illusory to consider the start date and the end date as being of the same class. Typically, the start date cited is indeed the start date -- date of first appearance. But the end date is almost never an end data at all -- it's actually the start date of the next version of that model or feature. The trap is thinking that when a new version of a feature or pen was introduced, that correlated with a termination of the older version of the feature or pen. Though the manufacturer's literature may give that impression -- they were trying to sell the newer version -- what was actually being made, assembled, and sold is usually quite different. Numerous examples demonstrate this principle -- flat-tops from 1937+, Jade pens from 1939+, etc.

 

--Daniel