1919 Sheaffer, Original Box, Instructions

[Univer]

Hi All,

 

Moving over from the "Pen History" forum to the Sheaffer Forum...

 

Here, after many delays, are the images of a recent acquisition: a very nice early Sheaffer with the proper box and instruction sheet.

 

First things first: the instruction sheet. Scans of front and back are attached. I thought I might briefly mention a few points that were of interest...to me, at any rate.

 

 

When I first glanced through this sheet, I was surprised to see that it doesn't try to cross-sell a Sheaffer-branded ink. A more careful reading, however, explains that fact. Judging by the code in the upper lefthand corner of the front side, this sheet dates from November 1919. According to the sources I've consulted, Sheaffer didn't introduce its own brand of ink until 1920: the alkaline Prussian Blue ink that was recalled shortly after its introduction, to be replaced, c. 1922, by Skrip. That's why this instruction sheet doesn't recommend Sheaffer ink; at the time, there wasn't any.

 

I had to smile over the direction to fill and empty the pen several times when first filling "to thoroughly moisten the nib and feed." That brought to mind the feed-soaking procedure recommended for the Danitrio eyedroppers. Good advice then, and good advice now.

 

I also noted the fact that Sheaffer obviously still felt it necessary, seven years after its first pens appeared, to include "sectional views" showing the operation of the lever system.

 

Interesting, too, that Sheaffer was happy to retip consumers' nibs...although the company did not "recommend repointing pens smaller than No. 5." And retipped nibs were not guaranteed.

 

Speaking of ink...I find it fascinating that the instructions recommend the use of "writing fluid OR special fountain pen inks." Speaking only for myself, I had always assumed that Sheaffer's use of the term "writing fluid" for Skrip (and the concomitant avoidance of the term "ink") was a matter of pure marketing spin: a tactic to distinguish Skrip, which was touted as "the successor to ink," from competing products, and maybe a way to distance Skrip, in the consumer's mind, from its unsuccessful alkaline predecessor. But Sheaffer is using the "writing fluid" term here, with no possible motive of self-promotion. So what, exactly, is the substance of the distinction between "writing fluid" and "special fountain pen inks"...if any? (Whatever the answer to that question, it seems that the pen's original owner might have been perfectly happy with iron-gall ink, as witness the disintegration of the paper where ink has spilled.)

 

Now: on to the pen and the box.

 

This first image shows the box: once, presumably, a rich blue, and now pretty evenly faded.

 

 

This next image shows the pen in the box; the instruction sheet, folded, was originally in here as well.

 

 

The next two images show the pen alone, capped and uncapped. No cleaning or polishing has been done. As I hope you can see, the chasing remains very crisp, and there's very little discoloration: no perceptible difference between the capped and uncapped areas. If you look closely, you can see the pointing-finger "TURN" imprint on the cap. The nib is a nice flexible No. 3 Self-Filling; the cap top is imprinted with the numeral "2." The pen is 5 3/8" long.

 

 

Finally, a composite close-up image (relative sizes are not correct). On the left: a close-up of the top of the box. The graphic above the "Sheaffer's" logo represents a hand holding a pen. The copy below the logo reads "SELF-FILLING NON-LEAKABLE/FOUNTAIN PEN." On the right: a close-up of the barrel imprint. This is the best-preserved example of this rather uncommon imprint I have encountered. It's possible, in this image, to read the name "Sheaffer's" in the upper curve of the central "S" (diagonally bisected by the image of a fountain pen). The name appears in the lower curve as well, but it's worn, and visible only with a powerful loupe.

 

 

All in all - nice to have some "context" for the pen (although the pen is plenty nice all by itself). Hope this is of some interest!

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

 

 

 

[Roger W.]

Jon;

 

Sweet! The large central S is one of my personal favorite imprints. Nice presentation.

 

Roger W.

[Maja]

"Avoid muddy and gummy ink".

 

I love it! Some of those old instruction sheets are truly endearing...

 

Thank you for taking the time to photograph everything, Jon. I find this old advertising fascinating...and the pen itself looks wonderful.

[Shangas]

Very interesting, Univer. And the pen looks to be in very good condition!

 

Is it in any position to be written with, though?

[Univer]

Hi there,

 

Thanks, all, for the kind words.

 

Roger, I love this imprint too. But I so seldom see it in really nice condition!

 

'Avoid muddy or gummy ink' - I agree, Maja, words to live by.

 

Shangas, I think the pen is definitely in writing shape (with the exception of the sac, naturally). The nib is perfectly smooth, with ample tipping. I'm assuming, of course, that I don't encounter anything untoward when I open it up; but if there are no nasty surprises, this old fellow should be back in service with a minimum of fuss.

 

Now, as to the matter of when I'll summon the courage to get to work on it...that's a whole other question.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

[ebrian]

Nice pics and pen. The photo of the imprint is a little hard to read, but it seems to be the rare version of the large S imprint - it lacks the November patent date. I would presume that this imprint was only used between the two patent dates - Oct 20 and Nov 24, 1914. I've never seen one other than a photo of the imprint in the old F&S blue pen book. Roger, however, has hard rubber pen with an imprint that neither of us has ever seen anywhere. Which brings up the question - why did Sheaffer use the variety of imprints, which seem to have evolved fairly quickly to the 3-line text version. Maybe dies to stamp the imprint were easier to produce with the 3-line version, but why the other versions?

Eddie Brian

[jonro]

Thanks for sharing that very nice example of an unusual find. Did you buy it on eBay, from a dealer or private seller?

[Univer]

Eddie: sorry about the photo of the imprint - that was actually the best shot of the bunch. You've got good eyesight: there is, in fact, no November patent date. If this imprint was used only for a brief while during 1914, do you reckon the 1919 date inference from the instruction-sheet code is incorrect?

 

I've certainly scratched my head a time or two over the proliferation of early Sheaffer imprints/logos. Take a look, for example, at the well-known Coles Phillips "Giftie Set" ad. There's the open pen/pencil case with the same logo that appears on the box my pen came in, featuring the name "Sheaffer's" with a large "S" at the beginning and end; and there, up at the top, is a completely different rendition of the name. When usage is inconsistent even within the same piece, that's not a good sign. Obviously the notion of "branding," as we understand it today, had not yet been fully articulated (at least not in Fort Madison).

 

Jon, thank you for the kind words. This was an eBay purchase. I felt lucky to win it, and luckier still when it arrived.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

 

 

 

 

[Ray-Vigo]

Killer- a great looking pen.

[david i]

Neat stuff.

 

Now, if y'all wanna see a reaaaaAAAAaaaaaly early imprint...

 

http://removed.xyz/penteech/sheafferfirstimprint2.jpg

 

regards

 

david

 

 

[Roger W.]

Jon;

 

I too have a SD251. Mine has 5-19 and I agree that it looks like a date. I don't think your pen is right to the box though mine probably is (nothing can be absolute with things in boxes). My pen is new but it looks as though they needed a lever and broke the barrel in two to get it out so I think this was just NOS that was used for parts. I haven't studied these two forms to see if yours and mine match but with the form number I assume they do (though mine doesn't have the Australian offices nor Kansas City - maybe they took over Kraker in late 1919 - Walter had bought the stock).

 

The boxes are interesting with the first being the 1913 red box. The instruction sheet from the second box is shown - very flimsy no form number or date and probably is 1914. The 1919 box matches the hand logo used on Sheaffer cabinets at the time and illustrated in a 1919 catalogue. This is the same cabinet I have in my office.

 

Roger W.

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/5-19.jpg

Form SD251

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/5-19a.jpg

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/early.jpg

Instructions Circa 1914

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/earlya.jpg

 

 

Boxes

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/boxes001.jpg

Boxes - Circa 1913, Gift box that my central large S pen came in (pics later), 1919 box

Edited November 29, 2007 by Roger W.

[Roger W.]

Nice pics and pen. The photo of the imprint is a little hard to read, but it seems to be the rare version of the large S imprint - it lacks the November patent date. I would presume that this imprint was only used between the two patent dates - Oct 20 and Nov 24, 1914. I've never seen one other than a photo of the imprint in the old F&S blue pen book. Roger, however, has hard rubber pen with an imprint that neither of us has ever seen anywhere. Which brings up the question - why did Sheaffer use the variety of imprints, which seem to have evolved fairly quickly to the 3-line text version. Maybe dies to stamp the imprint were easier to produce with the 3-line version, but why the other versions?

Eddie Brian

 

Eddie;

 

It has the November patent but, does not have the January 27, 1914 patent date that was applied for last though, I don't know why that would make a difference. Mine has four holes in the cap and the hand showing the direction to turn so it is early. I've always thought of this as the third imprint before the two large S's imprint. First being the one David shows in this thread and the second being the oval on the imprint. The fifth would be the three line block imprint.

 

Roger W.

 

[Roger W.]

Imprints;

 

The large central S and the odd one of mine that Eddie mentioned. The central S says, starting at the bottom "Self-Filling Pen - Sheaffer's".

 

I don't know where to place the odd one. It is on an early 34 with 4 hole cap, no hand and SHEAFFER-CLIP. With the 34 being in the first catalogue it doesn't help knowing the model. Three views of each closeup.

 

Roger W.

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/imprintcentralS.jpg

Central S imprint, possibly third imprint

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/imprintcentralS1.jpg

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/imprintcentralS2.jpg

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/imprint4a1.jpg

Odd Imprint

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/imprint4a2.jpg

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/imprint4a3.jpg

 

[ebrian]

I too have a SD251. Mine has 5-19

Roger W.

Maybe the 100M on both forms means that 100,000 (M = 1000) were printed on 5/19 and on 11/19. Between the two dates, maybe Sheaffer sold 100,000 pens. Does anyone know if the Kraker enterprise was located at 2617 Walnut in Kansas City?

Eddie Brian

[ebrian]

If this imprint was used only for a brief while during 1914, do you reckon the 1919 date inference from the instruction-sheet code is incorrect?

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

I can't reconcile the difference other than perhaps the pen and box/instructions were not originally a pair. Sheaffer seems to have defended patent rights with vigor, so one would think that the patent dates would be quickly added to the imprint when the patents were issued. The pen looks like an earlier pen, however, with the pointing hand and raised barrel threads. In the few pages of the 1918 catalog I've seen, the pens do not have raised threads. However, I do have some pens with raised threads that have the 3-line version of imprint, but these are usually in larger or non-base model pens (341, etc). Oval imprint pens usually/always have raised threads. I looked at a few of my pens with the two large S imprints and none had raised threads. I've always assumed that the single large S imprint(s) were between the oval and the 2 large S imprint. I don't know exactly where Roger's pen imprint fits in, but it must be later as it has the later patent dates.

Eddie Brian

[kirchh]

I haven't studied these two forms to see if yours and mine match but with the form number I assume they do (though mine doesn't have the Australian offices nor Kansas City - maybe they took over Kraker in late 1919 - Walter had bought the stock).

Sure looks like they did -- in 1917, Kraker was listed as the president and general manager of Kraker in the city directory, with an address of 2615 Walnut St., but in the 1918 directory, Kraker's name is gone, and Leslie Blumenthal (possibly the 'Leslie' in the 'Leslie Harvey' company name, and later named manager of Sheaffer's NY office, IIRC) was bumped up from secretary to president (and treasurer), and the address was 2617 Walnut, matching the address on Sheaffer instructions of this era.

 

Still a mystery why there are clips with 1919 patent dates stamped 'KRAKER'...

 

--Daniel