Jump to content

Dating Pelikan fountain Pen


tacitus

Recommended Posts

Green indicates the changes in the current generation.

 

Sixth generation

Pelikan 100 (ca.1938) (Part 1)

 

Cap top; material: celluloid, shape: conical, flat cap top edge, logo: new two chicks logo on the top and “Pelikan GÜNTER WAGNER” on the lateral side.
Cap tube; material: celluloid, shape: no vent holes, two gold plated narrow bands, grooved around the inner wall.
Clip; shape: gold plated drop clip.
Nib; material: gold plated palladium (Pd), shape: round shaped hole, logo:

Pelikan
Pd

(“Pd” is circled)

Nib socket; material: ebonite, shape: short (12 mm). 
Grip section; material: celluloid, shape; tapered, flat top edge.
Barrel; material: transparent amber (yellow) or green celluloid with brass ring.
Sleeve (Binde); material: celluloid.
Knob unit; material: celluloid with cork seal, shape: knurled turning knob. 

Dimensions;

Total Cap Barrel Barrel Barrel Cap Ink Total
length length length width (a) width (b) width chamber(c) weight
116 mm 61.5 mm 93 mm 12 mm 10.5 mm 13 mm 1.4 ml 15 g

 (a) with sleeve, (b)without sleeve, (c)ink chamber volume

 

In the late 1930's, model 100 reached a turning point. Günter Wagner chose (or was forced) to make constructional and material changes.

 

In February 1938, the use of gold nibs for the domestic market was forbidden by the government. Following it, as of May 16, 1938, pens were fitted with palladium nibs(1, 2) (Green Book). 

 

The precious metal models or or “luxury models” (model 110-112) were still on the 100th anniversary catalog (German 1938)(3), but no longer on the corresponding export catalog. They were replaced with those of 100N from 1938 to 1939. By the end of March 1939, all precious metal models for the domestic market were discontinued (Green Book). From then on, the precious metal models were only 100N variants and were exclusively destined for the export market as in "Pelican” catalog (English 1939)(4). At the time, the export trade was forced by the government to secure hard currency (Pelikan History).

 

Model 101 had also been discontinued by 1939.

 

As of October 11, 1939, pens were fitted with chromium/nickel (CN) nibs, as the use of palladium nibs for the domestic market was forbidden by the government (Green Book).

 

In Fig.3, we can see that the nib had been gold-plated. Gold plate at the tip is gone. Different from gold nib, there is no mark that indicates the purity of palladium(2). There is no nib size specification on nib (nor the cone nor the feed)(2, 3).

 

Note;(1)Putting it the other way around, it seems that gold nibs for the export market were still available. According to Rick Propas, “the question of gold nibs is pretty obscure”. His guess is that “...logically gold nibs were permitted for export until "about" 1940...After 1939 gold nibs got very scarce for any market... After April 1940 the Germans knew that they would have to fight French, then the British and probably the Russians…” Interestingly, Fig.5 is the export version of model 100 (by courtesy of Christof Zollinger). Please also refer to his timeline. According to him, in Switzerland model 100 with gold nibs was available during the whole wartime. Günter Wagner had its own repair center and ink manufacture in Zurich which was able to deliver pens and gold nibs (from stock) during the entire war time. Some of the pens were even marked with "Export". "Export" imprint is seen on the sleeve near the cone. It seems that the situation varied from country to country, region to region.

(2)As I’m not an expert in the material of the time, let me ask why palladium was the alternative to gold? If the nib was palladium alloy, was it Pd950 or Pd500 or other? What was the alloying metal? Nickel or silver? These questions may be out of the scope of this thread, but if anyone knows about it, please let us know. I have two Pd nibs (Fig.4). Both nibs are less flex than out-sourced 100 nibs, and more flex than modern M400 nibs. Though not specified, they are “F” size to me. They are just my impression.

(3)When the catalog was issued, gold nibs had already been forbidden. But, the wide variety of nibs on it suggests that pens were fitted with gold nibs (from stock) (it is unlikely for me that Pd/CN nibs had that wide varieties). Rick’s guess (again) is that “after 1939-40 they were fitted with Pd and then CN nibs, but it is almost impossible to know because some existing gold nibs were scrapped during the war. I suspect that many people had CN nibs replaced with gold after 1948, especially if you were wealthy enough to have a 110N…”. I found an example of the precious metal model with Pd nib in Penboard Database.

(4)Again, the wide variety of nibs on it suggests that pens for the export market were fitted with gold nibs at the time.

 

Fig.1

4.JPG.5b778782dac8e49cbb5428faad1c054d.JPG

 

Fig.2

3.JPG.268a7893bfc6cccbb2d1de1fd6449de7.JPG

 

Fig.3

1.JPG.ceda2bc2cb63e3696a5d2692288862b0.JPG

 

Fig.4

2.JPG.a2c6554a36563490eb15cf4f10f6ae02.JPG

 

Fig.5

Pelikan 100 1937 Export

by courtesy of Christof Zollinger

 

To be continued to Part 2

 

 

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • tacitus

    207

  • stoen

    49

  • christof

    11

  • mana

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Green indicates the changes in the current generation.

 

Sixth generation

Pelikan 100 (ca.1938) (Part 2)

 

Major changes were also made in material of the body and the cap. Ebonite had been the basic material of fountain pens. But, it was unstable and susceptible to water and UV rays. Beginning with Sheaffer in 1926, celluloid came to dominate the manufacture of pens until after World War II. From the start, Günter Wagner used celluloid for sleeves, later for bodies. The company, however, stayed with ebonite for cap tubes and cap tops until 1938. Then, they gradually moved toward celluloid, first for cap tubes, then for cap tops, and finally for filler mechanisms(5). The company stayed with ebonite for the filler mechanism somewhat longer, as celluloid proved difficult to mill in the distinctive manner of the turning knob. But the company did produce a milled celluloid knob for a few years before the introduction of the smooth knob. By 1939, except for foreign production (e.g. Milan), ebonite was gone from Pelikan pens (Pelikan History).

 

Fig.5 shows the cap top and cap tube. It is not so easy to distinguish between celluloid and ebonite at a glance if they are well kept/cared for. A hint of the smell of camphor indicates that it is made of celluloid. The logo on the lateral side of the cap top is different (Fig.5 left)(6). Other major differences are the sealing and ventilating system of the cap. With both cap top edge and the top edge of the grip section being flat, they form a frontal plane seal(7) as in the 1st generation. There still exists a groove inside of the cap tube but not vent holes(7). Günter Wagner suspended vent holes in this generation(7, 😎. The grip section, made of celluloid, has the same shape as the 4th generation except for the top edge. As shown in Fig.6-8, the filling system is slightly different in the details(7). For example, instead of a tiny pin, the ridge along the inside of the piston guide prevents the rotation movement of the piston rod (Fig.7), The ridge guides the piston rod more firmly. There is no guiding pin hole, no arrow on the turning knob (Fig.8)(9). BTW, the cap does not post securely (Fig.1). The inner diameter of the cap tube is smaller with the sixth generation.

 

Note;(5)As a result of that, “... today many of the pens come down to us with mixed materials (e.g., cap tube of celluloid with cap top of ebonite). Some of these pens may be later “marriages” but many are quite correct...” (Pelikan History). So, otter pens in this generation may have parts made of ebonite.  

(6)My other pen with Pd nib has “Pelikan PATENT Pelikan PATENT'' imprint (Fig.5 right). When and why "new" imprint was introduced is not clear.

(7)I’m not sure if these changes were made to reduce the manufacturing processes/cost, but it seems that the company thought that practically the frontal seal was tight enough, and that without vent holes, the groove (and the gap around the grip section) were capable of both equalizing the cap pressure  and ventilating the grip section.

(8)In the following generations, vent holes came back in the cap tube.
(9)Looking at the turning knobs, celluloid seems to be less resistant to friction than ebonite. That’s why Günter Wagner stuck to using ebonite for it?

 

P.S.; “Palladium, although considered precious metal from the platinum group, was not as expensive as platinum, and had been used in the automotive industry in the 1930’s”. With his comment, @stoen sent me another example of wartime Pd nib (MontBlanc L139; “P” mark beneath the logo) (Fig.9). “250”seems to indicate the nib model number, not the millesimal fineness. I also found the pre-war Pd nib (Soennecken Präsident 1 ; “Pargo'' imprint). According to the source, the nib was palladium/silver alloy, but palladium purity is not specified. It remains to be not elucidated. It is interesting that three nibs were all German manufacture made.

 

Fig.5 Both from Pelikan 100 of 6th generation

5.JPG.d2afa779fa912da53c1374f3356a650c.JPG

 

Fig.6 left; from Pelikan 100 (ca.1938), right from Pelikan 100 (ca.1937)

6.JPG.8b3bc88ecd2e17d46be12a0c16cd1595.JPG

 

Fig.7 left; from Pelikan 100 (ca.1938), right from Pelikan 100 (ca.1937)

7.jpg.e416762cbed37a4605fe8098b22d5360.jpg

 

Fig.8 left; from Pelikan 100 (ca.1938), right from Pelikan 100 (ca.1937)

8.JPG.a15e9f2d53edf7cfca1ca61a2d4f21a9.JPG

 

Fig.9 MontBlanc L139 by courtesy of @stoen

21134923-E97A-450A-B4DF-7F9F9C6B23AA.jpeg.8e0abcd280c1b37060a5c49ba11250ca.jpeg

Edited by tacitus
information corrected

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ADDENDUM to Fourth generation

Pelikan 100 (ca.1935?)

 

@stoensent me photos of a Pelikan 100 as a "pen difficult to date".

 

According to his comments, "...the barrel is amber color celluloid reinforced with ring, section straight concave, cap tube four-holed (version #1), conical cap top, with four-chick logo, all are conformant to the "3rd generation". The nib should however belong to the "4th generation" (1934-1935). No nib width inscribed neither on the nib nor on the feed. ..somewhat difficult to date, it may be a transitional model between 3rd and 4th generation..."

 

Changes were made at various time point and at various parts, and model 100 were produced seamlessly. As "generation" was made afterward, there is a good reason that many transitional models exist. Tentatively, I categorized the pen into the "4th generation".

6402DFA5-DBC0-452D-B77B-5E53CC3CE168.jpeg

01B0654B-90A6-4EE6-BBAE-B113F5F94F58.jpeg

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 8:58 AM, tacitus said:

Changes were made at various time point and at various parts, and model 100 were produced seamlessly. As "generation" was made afterward, there is a good reason that many transitional models exist. Tentatively, I categorized the pen into the "4th generation".

Thanks for posting and commenting this difficult example, @tacitus. It actually sheds light on few deeper questions we all have to deal with in our attempts of dating a Pelikan fountain pen. A generation is our convention in naming a major time-limited constructional paradigm, with all its constituents (such as drafts, materials, technologies tool-ups) involved. Which are the prevailing criteria for detecting one? I’m using the following ones:

  1. congruence of major building blocks
  2. construction of the nib (unit)
  3. dating of oldest/newest parts
  4. slight design and construction variations

put in this order of precedence. Any of them could be furtherly broken down. 

 

When they don’t match we suspect either transitional models, exceptions (...), repair shop jobs, restorations or frankenpens, in extreme mismatch cases.

 

This particular pen has congruence of all body parts, except for the nib unit, to the period between mid 1931 and mid 1933, mentioning that these particular bodies and cap tubes weren’t manufactured beyond summer 1933, according to Dominics page:

https://www.pelikan-collectibles.com/en/Pelikan/Models/Historic-Pens/100/index.html

 

There seems to be a year and a half gap between the nib unit and the rest of the pen, which appears a little bit much for a transitional model. This particular nib inprint is very interesting because it showed up on a limited number of 100 nibs and the entire batch of original Magnum nibs. One can therefore tentatively date the nib unit to 1935 (the year Magnum batch was commisioned), or slightly earlier.

 

[Although] the nib units haven’t been devised for repalacement by the end user , if I correctly understood what @Rick Propas probably meant in one of his previous posts, yet could have easily been backordered and replaced in authorized service booths of that time. This can be concluded from the dealers’ catalogues.

 

So, in an alternative dating attempt, this pen could possibly be dated to the third generation with a fourth generation nib unit repair job.

 

Hope this can contribute to the thread.

🙂

 

 

Edited by stoen
clarification of the term *generation*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ADDENDUM to Sixth generation

Pelikan 100 (ca.1938)

 

I have not mentioned the change in the feed. The feed of model 100 I think is characterized by the long “tail” that was cut off diagonally (Fig.1 left)(1). The other characteristic is the “slot(2). The feed has three fins (tines? lamellae?), the middle of which has a recess or a “slot” (Fig.2 left).

 

In 1937, the feed without slot was introduced (Fig.2 right) (Pelikan-Guide). Fig.3 shows two pens in the 6th generation. Both pens have the feed without slot, but the top pen has a diagonal seal, suggesting that it is the transit model.

According to @stoenand@christof, there is a celluloid cap tube that has vent holes. It seems that pens with and without vent holes were concurrently manufactured.

 

Note;(1)My guess is that the tail, with increased contact area with ink (Fig.1 left), helped to guide ink into the feed. I read somewhere that “the ink of the time was more viscous or dense and flowed less than modern inks. So, the feed was designed to conform to the ink of the time”. Moreover, model 100 nibs had larger vent holes than modern nibs do (Fig.5 left). So, model 100 with modern inks tends to be a wet writer.
(2)I don’t know what it was for. Did it serve as a depot of overflowed ink?

 

Does anyone know the exact meaning of the figuration of the tail and the slot?

 

Fig.1 nib unit left; 100, right; 100N

9.JPG.7b9ffd9006c12a80a20d3db8073d0d0d.JPG

 

Fig.2 feed of model 100 left; 1929-1937, right; 1937-

10.JPG.eaf398c8c15534cd7c381c049040a893.JPG

 

Fig.3 model 100s in 6th generation by courtesy of @stoen

C437DB78-D07F-4C5A-9DFE-E89F155C2DA7.jpeg.e37d55fddeadc040089fbf6ada564f66.jpeg

 

Fig.4 model 100 with vent holes by courtesy of @christof

gallery_19668_246_280271.thumb.jpg.35be993ff2138474edca5391e5dad9b3.jpg

 

Fig.5 Left; Blue Marbled 100 (ca.1937-38), Right; 1935 Jade (1998) 

from Originals Of Their Time: Darlings Of The 1930s (Pelikan’s Perch)

 

 

nibs.jpg?w=259&h=626

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum to the feed of model  100

 

@stoenand@christof sent me their thoughts about the feed.

 

According to @stoen, the diagonal tail had to do with capillary action and optimizing ink use. The illustration from@christofshows that the slanting shape of the feeder allows using the last drop of the ink reservoir.unnamed.thumb.jpg.9c92e991099da1022777b85f7bb98e6a.jpg

Both thoughts have "effective utilization of ink" in common, and more reasonable than mine.

 

@christofalso told me that Montblanc achieved the same effect in a different manner using a circumferential groove that connects the grooves on top with the lowest part of the reservoir.

montblanc_139l_nib.4.jpg.cf300ad8305fb83d170607cccfca29f6.jpg

Montblanc L139 nib and feed

 

Thank you  @stoenand@christof😊

 

 

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green indicates the changes in the current generation.

Seventh generation
Pelikan 100 (ca.1940)

 

Cap top; material: celluloid, shape: conical, flat cap top edge, logo: new two chicks logo on the top and “Pelikan GÜNTER WAGNER” on the lateral side.
Cap tube; material: celluloid, shape: 2 cap holes (one hole facing each other), two gold plated narrow bands(1), grooved at the level of vent holes around the inner wall.
Clip; shape: gold plated drop clip(1).
Nib; material: chromium/nickel (CN) - steel(2, 3), shape: round shaped hole, logo:

Pelikan
CN
(“CN” is circled)

Nib socket; material: ebonite, shape: short (12 mm). 
Grip section and barrel; material: green injection molded one piece acrylics, shape; tapered, flat top edge, no brass ring.
Sleeve; material: celluloid.
Filling system; material: injection molded acrylics with cork seal(4), shape: knurled→ smooth turning knob

Dimensions;(a) with sleeve, (b)without sleeve, (c)ink chamber volume

Total Cap Barrel Barrel Barrel Cap Ink Total
length length length width (a) width (b) width chamber(c) weight
117 mm 61 mm 95 mm 10.5 mm 11.5 mm 13 mm 1.4 ml 15 g

 

 I have only two generations left.

 

As of October 11, 1939, pens were fitted with chromium/nickel (CN) - steel nib or CN nib, as the use of palladium nibs for the domestic market was forbidden by the government. Some export market pens still had gold nibs (1940 Gray Pelikan 100)

 

In attempt to make the changeover to new CN nibs, Günter Wagner advertised them in its newsletter (1940), claiming that the new material was not inferior to gold in flexibility, durability and so on, and that the supremacy of gold should be forgotten(5). There is no nib size indication nor manufacturer's mark on the nib and anywhere else. The nibs have the half round slit for flexibility. The slit has several variations. Some nibs do not have slits (Pelikan”100” 戦時バージョン<CN>).

 

The company also stated in the same newsletter that “When the development is driven by determination, the product performance can be improved despite all difficulties.” In line with the grit, Günter Wagner introduced new technologies to pen bodies. In 1940, the company switched the celluloid body to the injection molded one piece body made of acrylics. The grip sections were painted black from inside. The reinforcing ring was abolished(6). The material of the filling system was also changed to the injection molded acrylics. As the delicate groove of the knurled turning knob was difficult to produce (Green Book), it was replaced with the smooth turning knob. In October 1942, the synthetic plastic seal was introduced to replace the cork seal (Green Book)(4).

 

Note;(1)Some pens of the time have nickel-plated clips, and others have non-plated cap rings (1941 Deep Green Pelikan 100).
(2)According to Fountain Pen Design, CN nibs seem to be austenitic steel, one of the stainless steel families (Nib Materials). It is a little magnetic. Cold heading seems to have modified the surface of the nib to render it magnetic (PELIKAN"100"<CN>).
(3)There seem to be two or three types in CN nibs in terms of plating.

  • Gold-plated. There are CN nibs that were slightly gold-plated. There is an IBIS CN nib that is gold-plated, too (Fig.6). 
  • Chromium-plated. “chromium/nickel-plated steel nibs” (Green Book).
  • Non-plated (or gold plating is worn out).

It is likely that some (early) CN nibs were lightly gold-plated similar to Pd nibs. As soon as Günter Wagner lost access to gold plating technologies (we can track that to clips and cap rings as above), they must have procured other technologies for plating nibs. What makes dating CN nibs difficult is that some owners may have replaced their CN nibs for gold nibs after the war, while other owners (re)built correctly looking pens of that time by replacing their gold nibs for CN nibs. So, few intact and fully datable pens from that period still exist (@stoen@Rick Propas)

(4)There were two types of synthetic plastic seals (Green Book). In the book, the earlier version is coupled with the knurled turning knob and the later version is coupled with the smooth turning knob. My pen has the early version (Fig.5 left). As shown in the timeline, the introduction of synthetic plastic seals may date back earlier to sometime in this generation.
(5)side from CN-steel, there seem to exist low quality pen points (PELIKAN"100"<CN>). My guess is that the restricted use of raw materials made the quality control of osmi-iridium difficult.
(6)Brass was a strategic material at that time. Was it to save brass? Or were the acrylics durable enough without a brass ring?

 

Fig.1. The lightly gold-plated CN nib.

1.JPG.cd1459428f0454757b1051e274f5328e.JPG

 

Fig.2

9.JPG.febf7312fec26afaf61d08c098ca39d4.JPG

 

Fig.3

12.JPG.48321ccb3f80b82b99cae50833f0127d.JPG

 

Fig.4. The turning knob (left; ca.1937, middle; ca.1938. right; ca.1940).

4.JPG.9629fadc4fd4f9800f1becb6f4abb4c8.JPG

 

Fig.5. The synthetic plastic seal (left; the early version, right; the later version).

5.JPG.50cecbaae188f4522a77e5c8494c3da3.JPG

 

Fig.6.  IBIS with gold-plated CN nib (by courtesy of @christof).51203911900_8e66b2f6d7_c.jpg.2876caacff469bffefa0e8d1c7853dbf.jpg

 

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Green indicates the changes in the current generation.

Eighth generation
Pelikan 100 (ca.1942)

 

Cap top; material: celluloid, shape: conical, flat cap top edge, logo: new two chicks logo on the top and “Pelikan GÜNTER WAGNER” on the lateral side.
Cap tube; material: celluloid, shape: 2 cap holes (one hole facing each other) /no vent holes(1), two incised rings (roulette)(2), grooved at the level of vent holes around the inner wall.
Clip; shape: nickel-plated drop clip(3).
Nib; material: chromium/nickel (CN) - steel, shape: round shaped hole, logo:

Pelikan
CN
(“CN” is circled)

Nib socket; material: ebonite, shape: short (12 mm). 
Grip section and barrel; material: green injection molded one piece acrylics, shape; tapered, flat top edge, no brass ring.
Sleeve; material: celluloid.
Filling system; material: injection molded acrylics with synthetic plastic seal(4), shape: smooth turning knob. 

Dimensions;(a) with sleeve, (b)without sleeve, (c)ink chamber volume

Total Cap Barrel Barrel Barrel Cap Ink Total
length length length width (a) width (b) width chamber(c) weight
117.5 mm 60 mm 94.5 mm 10.5 mm 11.5 mm 12.5 mm 1.4 ml 15 g

 

As of June 26, 1942 on, the only fountain pens that were allowed to be produced for the domestic market were standard 100s. For the export markets, for example, standard 100s, standard 100Ns, and 101Ns were still produced.

 

On August 13, 1942, Günter Wagner announced that only 100s without metal cap rings were to be produced for the domestic market(2, 3).

 

In October 1942, the synthetic plastic seal was introduced to replace the cork seal (Green Book)(4).

 

On March 19, 1943, Deutscher Reichsanzeiger announced that all production of fountain pens and their spare parts would be illegal as of May 1, 1943. At the same time, however, Günter Wagner received the instruction that the company should shift their production quota from domestic to foreign destinations.


As of March 31, 1944, the production of 100s was only legal for the export markets, meaning that the production of 100s for the domestic market had already been prohibited, and the model 100 was no longer mentioned in official documents. I do not know exactly when GÜNTER WAGNER stopped producing 100s. But, many sources assume that model 100 was discontinued at that time(5).

 

By the way, this (Fig.9) is the advertisement by Pelikan on Signal (Italian) No.2 (January, 1945) . At first, I thought that it was model 100, but @christof told me that it was 100N (Fig.10). Anyway, this advertisement shows that as of January 1945 in North Italy or Repubblica Sociale Italiana (RSI), Pelikan fountain pens were still available. 

 

Note;(1) The presence of vent holes is inconsistent (GoPens). 
(2) Some pens have no roulette just like the first generation. 
(3) It seems that nickel-plated drop clip was introduced at this period.
(4) My pen has the later version (right). Later, the black synthetic plastic seal turned out to be leaky, as it tended to shrink and/or lose elasticity over time (Green Book). 
(5) Judging from the large number of pens with injection molded acrylics in proportion to their production period, Günter Wagner presumably continued to produce spare parts until after World War II (Green Book).

 

Fig.1. CN nib that came with my 100. It has many corrosions.

I'm not sure if it is chrome-plated.

1.JPG.1fa0c56325f26e99a3c6375acbe28050.JPG

 

Fig.2. The sleeve is gray marble rather than green marble.

2.thumb.JPG.a6f1d4017179aa1b8915ee8774ed2d4d.JPG

 

Fig.3

4.JPG.e30d9a33cf2d8af030b60a7afe4621e6.JPG

 

Fig.4. Two incised rings (roulette) on the cap tube.

5.JPG.f675c22d16ca9cccc06439bca6ff89e8.JPG

 

Fig.5-8. Much better images of wartime 100s. By courtesy of Christof Zollinger.

51196881020_75d5d80617_c.jpg.57077c1e19b6c572367debe17e46c4cf.jpg51195095002_cf293d317e_c.jpg.73c029aa5f32a705f2ecbd685d8d32d3.jpg51195095377_6e8d8cf266_c.jpg.ab89926109904b8ec9524139d949953b.jpg51195804751_6d728294af_c.jpg.bbd0b19cc36176fba961792e7c4c4950.jpg

 

Fig.9. Pelikan advertisement on Signal Italian version in January 1945.

Anyone, please tell me what the ad says. 

417px-1945-01-Pelikan-100.jpg.7fec6d88124d267b96e9375d59e92cb8.jpg

 

Fig.10. The step on the grip section indicates that the pen was Pelikan 100N.

By courtesy of Christof Zollinger.

image001.png.ff3fd028b5c313f93fa25a9663a2f096.png

 

As you see, this is the last generation of model 100. Thank you all for giving me information, advice, suggestions, corrections, etc. and for viewing the posts. Of course, my posts owe much to the great book Pelikan Schreibgeräte (GreenBook) and many great websites like Pelikan-collectibles. I really appreciate it. I created a website to edit and archive the posts. I still have several supplements to model 1oo, but I’m planning to focus on Pelikan Magnum and subsequent model 100N in the following posts.

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMENDMENT to Eighth generation

Pelikan 100 (ca.1942)

 

@stoentaught me that "the text is comparing red wine with ink, and concluding that whereas the residue in a bottle of red wine can be a sign of quality, the ink bottles with bottom ink residue should be avoided, and Pelikan branded, fountain pen friendly inks be used instead".

 

So, the ad was for Pelikan ink not Pelikan pens and my comment on Fig.9 should be as follows:

 

...this advertisement shows that as of January 1945 in North Italy or Repubblica Sociale Italiana (RSI), Pelikan inks fountain pens were still available. 

 

By the way, the pen in the ad looks more like “Gdańsk” (Danzig) 100N with a single metal ring. But, the clip seems to be different from that of Danzig 100N. It is difficult to judge from the drawing only.

 

 

 

Edited by tacitus
Changed the wording.

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, tacitus said:

 

By the way, the pen in the ad looks like “Gdańsk” (Danzig) 100N with single metal ring. But, clip seems to be different...

I haven’t suggested the pen in the drawing looked “like a Gdańsk (Danzig) version”, but that it looked

more like a “Gdańsk” (Danzig) 100N” version for a reason of understanding the issues of artistic interpretation.

 

If it is an artistic drawing, which it seems to be, it is difficult to judge upon the profile drawing only. As for the section step it can easily be detected if there is one; as for the rings, it can be clearly seen if there are one or two. 

 

It is however true that the clip curvature seems slightly sharper than in the Danzig batch, and the ending “drop/diamond” a bit shorter than expected, but can it also be due to artistic interpretation perhaps? So may I kindly suggest this topic to be furtherly elaborated when the wartime 100N models come due?

🙂

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935) (Part 1)

 

Green indicates the points that differ from Pelikan 100/101 (ca.1935).

 

Cap top; material: ebonite, shape: conical, inclined cap top edge, logo: old four chicks logo on the top and “Pelikan Patent EMEGÊ” on the lateral side.

Cap tube; material: ebonite, shape: 2 cap holes (one hole facing each other), two narrow bands, grooved at the level of vent holes around the inner wall.

Clip; shape: gold plated drop clip.

Nib; material: 14 ct gold, shape: round vent hole, logo: 

Pelikan

14 KARAT

Feed; material: ebonite, shape: three lamellae, the middle of which has recess.

Nib socket; material: ebonite.

Grip section; material: ebonite, shape; inclined top edge, slightly tapered, step near the thread(1).

Barrel; material: transparent green celluloid with white layer, no brass ring

Sleeve; material: celluloid.

Filling system; material: ebonite with cork seal, shape: conical, smooth turning knob with arrow.

Dimensions;(a) with sleeve, (b)without sleeve, (c)ink chamber volume

Total Cap Barrel Barrel Barrel Cap Ink Total
length length length width (a) width (b) width chamber(c) weight
125.5 mm 63.5 mm 100.5 mm 12 mm 13 mm 14.5 mm 1.7 ml 18 g

 

This is the largest pen Günter Wagner made in the 1930s. 

 

On December 31, 1935, Pelikan Magnum appeared for the first time as “Portugiesische Aufmachung (Portuguese featuring or presentation)” in the delivery document from Günter Wagner(1). According to the document, Monteiro Guimarães Filho Lda, the Günter Wagner’s licensed Portuguese distributor, ordered 1600 fountain pens (without box or users manual) on October 16, 1935. The pens were in brown color, and the cap top had Pelikan logo and the markings “Pelikan-Emegê (Emegê in block letter)” (Fig.4). In Portuguese, the initials of Monteiro Guimarães was EME (M) and GÊ (G), phonetically. Those markings were probably made at the Günter Wagner factory because it wasn't easy to make the markings around the cap top. Reportedly, this was done as the company wanted to give full warranty to and repair only the pens they imported and sold. In the following orders, "Emege (in cursive letter)" markings were made either in the cap or the sleeve. In 1935-36, there were a good number of them made, most of which were sold in Portugal. But, the pen is not found in the official price lists. The descriptions above are mostly based on the article by Vasco Pisco. Please refer to the original article for further information (click)

 

As Vasco Pisco have already made a comprehensive research, Pelikan Magnum is based on the Pelikan 100. At the same time, the pen is the prototype or the predecessor of Pelikan 100N (click). To trace the "evolution" of Pelikan fountain pens, I'll compare Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935) with Pelikan 100 from the same year (ca.1935) and the first year Pelikan 100N (ca.1937) in the next post. I'll also comment on the "tortoiseshell" sleeve.

 

Note(1) What was the step for?

(2) When the pens were on the market, they were not called Pelikan Magnum. The pen had long been regarded as variant of model 100N (Pelikan-guide.com). In Fig.5, Pelikan Magnum should be "100N 1937 Schildpatt (tortoiseshell)" in the center of the middle row (from the German fountain pen book published in 1995)(click)(click). However, recent research by Vasco Pisco indicates that the pen was produced alongside with model 100 and before  model 100N. "Magnum is a Pelikan pen model by itself and not a Pelikan 100N variant"(Vasco Pisco) (click).

 

By the way, I'm wondering who and when named the pen "Magnum". 

 

Fig.1. The nib of Pelikan Magnum.

1.JPG.30c53dde073726076b1c2b8f3d3843a9.JPG

 

Fig.2

2.thumb.JPG.7a2b717b412eb05c2e90ce6e91448fa5.JPG

 

Fig.3

3.JPG.4e9688870ca4137bf2fca6ac1daa4801.JPG

 

Fig.4. Cap top with "EMEGÊ" marking.

18.JPG.b108c502537296a5e807bcb8c5363021.JPG

 

Fig.5. The price list of vintage Pelikan fountain pens (from German fountain pen book published in 1995).

10b684dd.jpg8f10848e.jpg

 

 

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935) (Part 2)

 

This post compares Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935) with Pelikan 100 from the same year (ca.1935) and the first year Pelikan 100N (ca.1937).

  • DimensionThe length of the grip section and ink window are the same through the three models. Pelikan Magnum has the longest sleeve and filling system (Fig.56). Pelikan Magnum is 8.5 mm longer and 1 mm thicker than 100. Pelikan 100N is 6 mm shorter and 0.5 mm thinner than Magnum. So, Magnum looks more like 100N than 100 in the dimension.
  • ShapeAll the cap tops are conical, among which Magnum has the most cone-like cap top. In the model Magnum, the turning knob became conical. As a result, the shape became more streamlined. In the model Magnum, a step was added to the grip section(2). So, Magnum looks more like 100N than 100 in the shape.
  • Nib; The nib of Pelikan 100 (ca.1935) and Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935) have the similar “Pelikan” imprint that was revised in 1934 (Fig.15) . The magnum Nib has "reversed triangle", which seems to be manufacturers mark. The same "reversed triangle" is seen on the nib of short cap top Pelikan 100 (click). Pelikan 100N (ca.1937) nib has “Pelikan” imprint that was revised in 1937 (Fig.7) (click). The shape is different from other two nibs. So, Magnum looks more like 100 than 100N as for the nib.
  • Filling system; many constructional changes were made in the model 100N. 1) the cone narrowed, 2) the notch was made on the piston guide for the piston rod stopper, 3) the screw-in type cork seal stopper was adopted, 4) an arrow in the turning knob was abolished (Fig.8), 5) The thread on the spindle narrowed (Fig.9). So, Magnum looks more like 100 than 100N as for the filling system.

So, Pelikan Magnum was the transitional model from 100 to 100N. I'm not sure if Pelikan Magnum was the pilot model for 100N. In the final post, I'll comment on the "tortoiseshell" sleeve and the barrel.

 

Fig.5. Left; Pelikan 100 (ca.1935), middle; Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935), right; Pelikan 100N (ca.1937).

7.JPG.c6e5cf8c9d61cc9d30998994259920c7.JPG

 

Fig.6. Left; Pelikan 100 (ca.1935), middle; Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935), right; Pelikan 100N (ca.1937).

71.JPG.e0091e07b1d71826e92b7c3d5cd93f66.JPG

 

Fig.7. The nibs. Left; Pelikan 100 (ca.1935), middle; Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935), right; Pelikan 100N (ca.1937).

6-8.JPG.f80f2409cdc8013f9dd9611835fcfaee.JPG

 

Fig.8. The filling systems. Left; Pelikan 100 (ca.1935), middle; Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935), right; Pelikan 100N (ca.1937).

9.JPG.1afd3c25af32d96f308e4970eabba115.JPG

 

Fig.9. The spindles. Left; Pelikan 100 (ca.1935), middle; Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935), right; Pelikan 100N (ca.1937).

10.JPG.e6bd20ad6c1d77edfdbc7f2730575d62.JPG

 

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935) (Part 3)


LastlyI'd like to comment on the "tortoiseshell" sleeve and the barrel. One day, when I twisted the turning knob while holding the sleeve, the sleeve came off accidentally (NOT intentionally) and the white layer appeared under the sleeve. The barrel was coated with the white layer (Fig.10). My Pelikan 100 and Pelikan 100N have the reinforcing ring brass on the barrel but not my Pelikan Magnum(3). At first, I didn't know why the adhesive or foundation was white. But, this site explained the reason why for me. According the site, for the color sleeve (brown?) of model 100/100N(4), the barrels were coated with white paint, so that base barrel color would not show through the sleeve. As you see in Fig.11the the brown sleeve is transparent, almost intact and no color fading. But, without the foundation, it looks dark brown due to the darkened barrel (Fig.12) (originally, the barrel should be green)(Fig.13). Thanks to the foundation, the sleeve looks still "tortoiseshell" just as it was made. When the white foundation gets degraded over time or is removed for repair, the sleeve color looks darkened or "faded", even if the sleeve itself is not (Fig.14 bottom). As in my 101N with the reinforcing ring, the difference of the color tone is clearer (Fig.14 middle). Pelikan M101N Tortoiseshell Brown is another example how the pen looks without the foundation on the barrel. The green barrel shows through the sleeve, making the pen further greenish. So, the white foundation was the "arcana" that Günter Wagner hid under the sleeve.

Note(3) As in Vasco's pen, some Magnum has the the reinforcing ring.

(4) I can't specify what model of 100/100N had the white foundation and what model not.

 

Fig.10. The barrels. Left; Pelikan 100 (ca.1935), middle; Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935), right; Pelikan 100N (ca.1937).

12.JPG.add307d12f317abb51a26604fe435b08.JPG

 

Fig.11. The brown sleeve of Pelikan Magnum.

11.JPG.7ecc01623274698a627da36b14f579fd.JPG

 

Fig.12. The brown sleeve of Pelikan Magnum.

45.JPG.c22d2264fc0a78a0b14a85692d2fb03b.JPG

 

Fig.13. The green barrel of Pelikan Magnum.

101.JPG.d6c87faef3870a534d752c30d8707bbd.JPG

 

Fig.14. The sleeve of 100N with degraded white foundation of the barrel. Top; Pelikan 101N (ca.1937), bottom; Pelikan 101N (ca.1949) .

88.JPG.7b058d39fba14057118a2f537d859e31.JPG

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First generation

Pelikan 100N (ca.1937)

Green indicates the points that differ from Pelikan 100 (ca.1937).

Cap top; material: ebonite, shape: conical, inclined cap top edge, logo: old four chicks logo(1) on the top and “Pelikan Patent Pelikan Patent on the lateral side.

Cap tube; material: ebonite, shape: 2 cap holes (one hole facing each other), two narrow bands, grooved at the level of vent holes around the inner wall.

Clip; shape: gold plated drop clip.

Nib; material: 14 ct gold, shape: round vent hole, logo:

Pelikan

585

14 KARAT

Feed; material: ebonite, shape: flat tail, three lamellae with the recess (2).

Nib socketmaterial: ebonite, shape: 13.5 mm.

Grip section; material: ebonite, shape; inclined top edge, slightly taperedstep near the thread.

Barrel; material: transparent celluloid with brass ring.

Sleeve; material: celluloid.

Filling system; material: ebonite with cork seal, shape: conical, smooth turning knob without arrow.

Dimensions;(a)with sleeve, (b)without sleeve, (c)ink chamber volume

Total Cap Barrel Barrel Barrel Cap Ink Total

length length length width(a) width(b) width capacity(c) weight

119.5 mm 61.5 mm 97.5 mm 11.4 mm 12.4 mm 13.5 mm 1.7 ml 15 g

 

On March 25, 1937, the introduction of model 100N was announced. "N" stood for "neu (new)", as it was the successor of model 100. However, rather than replacing the predecessor, model 100N was produced concurrently for the export market.

Like model 100, Pelikan 100N can be categorized into "generations" by their production time, materials, and constructional characteristics. The first generation consists only of the first year version. I compared the first Pelikan 100N (ca.1937) with Pelikan 100 from the same year (ca.1937). Please also refer to its another predecessor Pelikan Magnum (ca.1935).

  • Dimension; Model 100N is a bit larger than its predecessor 100 (click). But, the length of the grip section and ink window are the same. Model 100N is about 3 mm longer and 0.5 mm thicker than 100, while it is 6 mm shorter and 0.5 mm thinner than Magnum.

  • Shape; Like model Magnum, the turning knob is conical. As a result, model 1ooN looks more streamlined than 100 to the tastes of the time (Green book).

  • Nib unit; As in Fig.5, the shape of 1ooN is different from that of 100. The nib of model 100N seems to have have wider shoulders and shorter slit (or shorter tines) than that of 100(3). They have the same logo as model 100. “Pelikan” imprint is the newer one that was revised in 1937, and “585” is the purity of gold based on millesimal fineness adopted in the same year. As in Fig.6, the feed of model 100N is flatnot slanted tail. The nib socket of model 100N is 1.5 mm longer than that of 100 (Fig.6).

  • Cap; Pelikan 100N has the same sealing and ventilating system as model 100. The cap top logo is old four chicks logo(1)So, the nib adopted new style while the cap top did old style.

  • Grip section and body; Like model Magnum, model 100N has a step on the grip section (Fig.5). Model 100N has the reinforcing ring on the barrel as model 100.

  • Filling system; Many constructional changes were made in the model 100N (Fig.8). 1) the narrowed cone, 2) the notch on the piston guide that regulates the movement of the piston rod, 3) the screw-in cork seal stopper that securely fix the cork seal, 4) the arrow abolished on the turning knob, 5) The narrowed thread on the spindle.

Model 100N was not mere an enlarged copy of 100, but the new model based on model 100 and with many new characteristics.

According to Green Book, in the same year, model 101N characterized by colored cap and sleeve was introduced. The lineup were as follows (cap / sleeve):

  • brown / tortoiseshell

  • tortoiseshell/ tortoiseshell

  • lizard / lizard

In addition, like model 100/101, short cap top models were produced (Green Book).

Model 101N and short cap top models were destined for the export market, too. Precious metal models were not yet introduced in the first year (Green Book).

Note; (1) From 1937 to 1938, the cap top logo was replaced with new two chicks logo. Soold four chicks logo tells that it was the first year version.

(2) The pen has the nib size specification on the feed (Fig.4). This is compatible with model 100, as model 100 for the domestic market had nib size on the cone.

(3IMO, as a result of them, the nib of 100N are less flexible in general (click). I'm not sure if those changes were to the tastes of the time.

 

Fig.1. The nib of Pelikan 100N.

1.JPG.c181a47b6b279067b4eb177cc87962bf.JPG

 

 

Fig.2. Pelikan 100N with the cap posted.

2.thumb.JPG.bd216ecae5c2e84a1bb6c338f6560ad9.JPG

 

Fig.3. Pelikan 100N with the cap closed.

3.thumb.JPG.4f2587fcaef8f5a08787bb06bd7f4f5c.JPG

 

Fig.4. "K", the nib size specification on the feed.

7.thumb.JPG.dfd71b18d0b358c6c20f184e2840e03c.JPG

 

Fig.5. Comparison of the nibs of 100 and 100N. Left; 100N (ca.1937), right; 100 (ca.1937).

6-2.thumb.JPG.52698f9fab0960bfe5ca5976e9efb5fc.JPG

 

Fig.6. Comparison of the feeds of 100 and 100N. Left; 100 (ca.1937), right; 100N (ca.1937)

9.JPG.7b9ffd9006c12a80a20d3db8073d0d0d.jpg.97c796f8d8f629537e8304d7b0bece50.jpg

 

Fig.7. The exploded view of Pelikan 100N.

9-1.JPG.ce18125554da7d8a4e5802e7978004f8.JPG

 

Fig.8. The filling system of Pelikan 100N. The cork seal is missing.

11-3.thumb.JPG.94453833252856cd2289bbd5b677f60f.JPG

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First generation

Pelikan 101N (ca.1937)
 
In 1937, model 101N was introduced for the export market. In the same year, model 101Ncharacterized by colored cap and sleeve, was also introduced. The lineup were as follows (cap / sleeve):
  • brown / tortoiseshell
  • tortoiseshell/ tortoiseshell
  • lizard / lizard
This is the first year model 101N with tortoiseshell cap and tortoiseshell sleeve and old four chicks logo on the cap top. There is “Pelikan D.R.P. Pelikan D.R.P.” logo on the lateral side(1). As I wrote in Pelikan Magnum, the barrel is coated with white paint. But, the white paint on the reinforcing ring and the portion near the grip section is missing or degenerated. So, the tortoiseshell is heterogenous. Other specifications are same as the first year model 100N.

I'd like to comment on the material of the pen. I sometimes witnessed shrinkage of celluloid pens over time. When combined with other material, the shrinkage or deformation was distinct (Fig.4,5)(2). Of course, this is one example. Please note that not all the 100N/101N are like thatFig.6 is the an example of the well preserved Pelikan 101N. As a matter of fact, Günter Wagner was making efforts to improve the material and shape of their pens as ever. I'll focus on the barrel of 100N/101N, again.

 

Note; (1) D.R.P. is a abbreviation for "Deutsches Reichspatent". I don't know when DRP appeared on the logo. But, presumably it was used at latest until May, 1945 when "Deutsches Reich" ceased to exist. My 101N has "DRP" logo, while my 100N has ”Pelikan Patent". According to @stoen, "...the coexistence of “PATENT” and “DRP” in the first year could have the following explanation:

  • Pens assembled in Pelikan factories outside Germany (Italy, Danzig, Bulgaria, etc.), must have been issued registered patents in the countries of manufacturing. Therefore the sign must have been "PATENT".

  • Pens assembled in German Reich to be exported to France, UK, Switzerland, etc. pointed reference to the patent in the country of origin, therefore "DRP".

  • Once 100N was introduced in Germany, the sign for the local market was also PATENT, AFAIK..."

(2) The cap top of 101N consists of two parts, the cap top (celluloid) combined with the inner tube (ebonite). In Fig.4 bottom, after 84 years of production, celluloid cap top shrunk except for the portion on the ebonite lining. So, there is a remarkable crack all around the cap top side as a result of distortion. In Fig.5, celluloid sleeve shrunk except for the portion on the brass ring. So, there is a step on the sleeve around the reinforcing ring edge.

 

Fig.1. The nib unit of Pelikan 101N.

3-1.JPG.f252fef5467113946b7d0cd29b008ee7.JPG4-2.JPG.6bd07f154a038ffd23f0bc7564537090.JPG

 

Fig.2. Pelikan 101N with the cap posted. 

1-2.thumb.JPG.cbd6173b10976772a9a804fdea1eb2f2.JPG

 

Fig.3. Pelikan 101N with the cap closed. 

2.JPG.cc52d6b209a7ec48dbee01ca6eaad40e.JPG

 

Fig.4. Cap top of Pelikan 101N.

9.JPG.c3eef1278d24a6b9a4ea2539027ed93c.JPG8.JPG.6bc0f058d604526b0ac386ba106303df.JPG

 

Fig.5. Sleeve of Pelikan 101N. 

45.thumb.JPG.913bfdb5aec9dab28f66c299477ca90b.JPG

 

Fig.6. Pelikan 101N (ca.1937) . By courtesy of Christof Zollinger.
 

 

32707906285_f20cfb9140_c.jpg.0017727eaac886678543f48f0f9c736c.jpg51267201064_72559dc2d0_c.jpg.3de994f42dd12655b1a5a7ab1f24b2f3.jpg
 

 

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What wonderful information.:notworthy1:

It should be penned!!!!

 

I have a post war near mint 100n, with a gold superflex K superflex, 5X nib...so having read Richard, only take it out to 4X.

 

A fairly large K is a marking under the normal Pelikan and 14 Karat. It is to my eyeball a F....a Kugal ...with out the  F marking..Mp size marking on the piston knob.

 

I have to admit it took me a while to look at the tip and see the little Kugal on the F nib...the AH Ha.

 

We were selling in an indoor flea market Had I turned right instead of left, I'd been a someguy....but I still got a big bargain so am someguy's cousin.

Had I turned left I'd gotten to the pen before someone told her it was worth money.

In reference to P. T. Barnum; to advise for free is foolish, ........busybodies are ill liked by both factions.

 

 

The cheapest lessons are from those who learned expensive lessons. Ignorance is best for learning expensive lessons.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second generation

Pelikan 100N (ca.1938)
 

Green indicates the changes from Pelikan 100N (ca.1937).

Cap top; material: ebonite, shape: conical, inclined cap top edge, logo: new two chicks logo on the top and “Pelikan D.R.P. Pelikan D.R.P. on the lateral side.

Cap tube; material: ebonite, shape: 2 cap holes (one hole facing each other), two narrow bands, grooved at the level of vent holes around the inner wall.

Clip; shape: gold plated drop clip.

Nib; material: 14 ct gold, shape: round vent hole, logo:

Pelikan

585

14 KARAT

Feed; material: ebonite, shape: flat tail, three lamellae with the recess.

Nib socket; material: ebonite, shape: 13.5 mm.

Grip section; material: ebonite, shape; inclined top edge, slightly tapered, step near the thread.

Barrel; material: transparent celluloid with brass ring.

Sleeve; material: celluloid.

Filling system; material: ebonite with cork seal, shape: conical, smooth turning knob.

Dimensions;(a)with sleeve, (b)without sleeve, (c)ink chamber volume

Total Cap Barrel Barrel Barrel Cap Ink Total

length length length width(a) width(b) width capacity(c) weight

119 mm 63 mm 100.5 mm 11.5 mm 12.5 mm 14.5 mm 2.0 ml 18 g

On April 28, 1938, Günter Wagner celebrated the 100th anniversary, and offered model 100N for the domestic market as the part of the celebration. This is the first pen of the 2nd generation. The only major change from the 1st generation was the cap top logo (new two chicks logo)(Fig.4). Soon after the introduction (May 16, 1938), model 100N were fitted with Pd nibs for the domestic market(2), as the use of gold was put under control of the government.

In this year, the product range was expanded further. Like mode 100, the precious metal models or “luxury models” were introduced (Pelikan-guide). The precious metal models for model 100N replaced those for model 100 by 1939.

  • Model 100N Gold; sleeve and cap rings made of 14 ct gold.

  • Model 101N White gold doublé; cap and sleeve made of rolled white gold.

  • Model 100N Toledo; "pelican" motifs on a gold-plated steel sleeve, clip decorated with a pelican motif and milled cap rings.

  • Model 101N Gold; cap and sleeve made of 14 ct gold.

In addition, several variant models were introduced.

Note; (1) The pen has nib size specification on the turning knob (Fig.5), not the cone. I'm not sure if the pen was for the domestic market.

(2Gold nibs were still available for the export market.

(3) Presumably in this year.

 

Fig.1. The nib of Pelikan 100N.

1.JPG.b3811ac7b11ada745aba6a74f3151e98.JPG

 

Fig.2. Pelikan 100 with the cap posted.

2.thumb.JPG.a98b01862479c3535624824bc2d1ccd8.JPG

 

Fig.3. Pelikan 100 with the cap closed.

3.thumb.JPG.cde1027ef8a398bbd68ff779a30dd1bc.JPG

 

Fig.4. The cap top logo of Pelikan 100

6.JPG.3e3ccf9fdd24e67a22b9bf4cf22e6b63.JPG

 

Fig.5. The turning knob with nib size specification

5.JPG.9a2f207ee39f37eb60d002a66fdecb73.JPG

 

Fig.6. Pelikan 100N in bakelite box. By courtesy of Christof Zollinger.

unnamed.png.9e21cc87c58a43cf06624fc4b2f83cd7.png2021-07-11_211414.png.f5427790df40ddb74d38d0addd33851a.png

 

Fig.7. Pelikan 100N without a clip (Pelikan Pens: History).

100NLady.jpg.c64a53cb4246ef9b48c9956756d6b7b0.jpg

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, lionelc said:

moderators - pin this wealth of knowledge please

Thank you, @lionelc😄. In the next post, I'll cover the variation of the 100N barrels. 

Please visit my website Modern Pelikan Pens for the latest information. It is updating and correcting original articles posted in "Dating Pelikan fountain Pen".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Most Contributions

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

  • Blog Comments

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

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






×
×
  • Create New...