Jump to content

Dating Pelikan fountain Pen



Recommended Posts

tacitus

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

 

 

My website (here)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • tacitus

    57

  • stoen

    26

  • Rick Propas

    5

  • Bo Bo Olson

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

tacitus
Posted (edited)

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

My website (here)

Link to post
Share on other sites
tacitus

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

My website (here)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 post
Share on other sites
tacitus

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

My website (here)

Link to post
Share on other sites
tacitus

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😊

 

 

My website (here)

Link to post
Share on other sites
tacitus

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

 

My website (here)

Link to post
Share on other sites
tacitus

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.

My website (here)

Link to post
Share on other sites
tacitus
Posted (edited)

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.

My website (here)

Link to post
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 post
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

 

 

My website (here)

Link to post
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

 

My website (here)

Link to post
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
      37512
    2. PAKMAN
      PAKMAN
      30204
    3. Ghost Plane
      Ghost Plane
      28220
    4. jar
      jar
      26101
    5. wimg
      wimg
      25570
  • Upcoming Events

  • Blog Comments

    • A Smug Dill
      Even so, you'd end up with a fragmented list, and it becomes an O(N²) process for each prospective requestor to check what is available: effectively recreate the list of currently active servers (without any reliable up-to-date info upfront about the inks and number of samples on offer in the thread) from the sequential list of posts, which may be spread over two or even more pages, and then query each server independently to check what is currently on offer.   It comes down to not hav
    • LizEF
      If one wanted to do this, one could just use the "About Me" field which appears to be unlimited in size.  And if a bunch of people wanted to cooperate, the Member Title field (or signature) could be used to this end - "Ink Giver" (or some such) could be used by those with inks to give...  No software edits required.
    • Arkanabar
      I suppose the update issue could be mitigated.  One would post a link in signature, to the particular part of your profile where you list the inks that you're willing to post samples to others, gratis.  But looking at profiles, I suspect that would require an edit to the board's software, potentially a nontrivial task.
    • A Smug Dill
      I read your idea as getting willing givers to publicly register as members of a set of heterogenous servers, in a system in which a client would explicitly select an available server from a list, to which he/she will then send a request privately and asynchronously. Request handling in the system is unmanaged, and individual requests are handled by the targeted servers completely independently on each other. I think the model is fine, although there are some operational concerns you may want to
    • Daneaxe
      First thought on the method/system of ink sharing: Think the best way, to begin with, is to follow the way of the US thread: offer up a (small) list of inks you are willing to PIF, to whoever expresses interest. Write clearly in the "mission statement" how it works, with a tiny "quid pro quo" that even a struggling student can comply with, i.e. post your opinion and a writing sample, with option of a full review if desired.   So yours truly might say: "I'm offering up samples of D
  • Chatbox

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

    • By benbot517
      51 years and 5 months
    • By benbot517
      51 years and 5 months
    • By benbot517
      51 years and 5 months
    • By Okami
      51 years and 5 months
    • By Okami
      51 years and 5 months
  • Random Adverts

  • Files

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bdanh1989
      bdanh1989
      (32 years old)
    2. Breandan
      Breandan
      (81 years old)
    3. brucezarat
      brucezarat
      (34 years old)
    4. ClassicBlack
      ClassicBlack
    5. coyote
      coyote
      (60 years old)





×
×
  • Create New...