Swan numerology -- is that the right word?

[Christopher Godfrey]

I have two Swans among my collection: an early Model 2 (don't think this is the correct terminology) in red ripple HR, no ornamentation at all (#2 nib), and a 1042  in blue and black mottled celluloid (#4 nib), both of which have lovely flexy nibs (especially the early one).  My question concerns the numerical workings of the Swan models -- I have <no idea>!  I do have a collection of vintage Watermans and it took me a while to understand <their> identification methodology; but with Swan  I am quite at sea.  I do not understand their numbers at all.

 

Where is all this explained, anyone?

[Schaumburg_Swan]

5 hours ago, Christopher Godfrey said:

I have two Swans among my collection: an early Model 2 (don't think this is the correct terminology) in red ripple HR, no ornamentation at all (#2 nib), and a 1042  in blue and black mottled celluloid (#4 nib), both of which have lovely flexy nibs (especially the early one).  My question concerns the numerical workings of the Swan models -- I have <no idea>!  I do have a collection of vintage Watermans and it took me a while to understand <their> identification methodology; but with Swan  I am quite at sea.  I do not understand their numbers at all.

 

Where is all this explained, anyone?

 

Hi,

 

it indeed isn't easy or logical - Mabie Todd changed their nomenclature often...

For example in the line of Leverless models with #2 nibs in black calluloid (60) we have the L212/60 later the 0160 and finally the 4260.

The antipart to the 0160 with #4 nib is then the 1060.

 

A very good literature is Steven Hull's book "The Swan Pen"

 

Best

Jens

[Christopher Godfrey]

Ach, Jens, danke sehr: ich werde das Buch suchen.

[Schaumburg_Swan]

Gerne doch. 🙂

 

By the way: There is a great blog on Swan pens:

https://goodwriterspens.com/?s=Swan+numbering   

[Christopher Godfrey]

Ja, danke noch einmal...