Sheaffer Imperial Sterling, Diamond/ Crosshatch Pattern

[QM2]

I am interested to learn more about the Sheaffer Imperial Sterling, with the Diamond/ Crosshatch Pattern.

 

First off, what is the official name of the pattern on this pen? I see it described by sellers as "diamond", "cross-hatch", and several other names as well. Which is the correct full name of this model?

 

Also, during which years was this pen in production? I know it was produced throughout the 1970s, but if you know the exact dates I would appreciate the information.

 

The bigger question is about the filling mechanism. As I understand it, this pen existed in a touchdown version, and in a CC version. Was it ever offered with a piston filler? An extremely overpriced one is being sold right now on e bay, described as "piston", which I do not think existed.

 

Finally, what is the difference in value between the touchdown and CC versions? I tried to determine this by comparing the prices this pen is sold at, but it looks fairly random to me.

 

Many thanks,

QM2

Edited June 11, 2008 by QM2

[Glenn-SC]

Like this?

 

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j95/glenn-sc/ac65b4e6.jpg

[Brownieeeee]

top gold one is the Imperial Sovereign and the one below is the silver Imperial. The names changed as new models were released there are 5 or 6 six different silver imperial finishes. The catalogues that i have show a few different model numbers over time.

 

The pen came in touchdown and cartridge. The listing is an incorrectly discribed pen.

 

I would expect to pay more for the touchdown version but depends on condition.

 

 

 

[QM2]

Thanks for making me jealous, Glenn! Yours are both the CC versions I see.

 

Interesting that the gold one has a more elongated inlaid nib-design than the silver one. I have not noticed this difference in styles before. Do you know whether it has to do with them being gold vs silver, or with one being older than the other.

 

Thanks for clarifying re the usage of "sovereign".

 

Does anyone know what the diamond/ cross-hatch pattern is officially called?

 

 

[Univer]

Hi,

 

I've held off on contributing to this extremely interesting thread because I didn't have anything definitive to offer by way of dates or model names. And - as I'm sure people are weary of hearing, sorry! - I can't readily access much of my collection at the moment, in order to check on specific examples.

 

But I did have the good fortune to stumble on a recent, relevant thead that shows an excellent photo of the Touchdown Sterling Silver Imperial, along with another photo of a cartridge/converter set.

 

As Brownieeeee rightly points out, there were several different Sterling Imperial patterns that could conceivably be termed "diamond" or "crosshatch" patterns. At a bare minimum, there's the elongated-diamond c/c; the "square" diamond Touchdown; a less-often-seen zigzag-diamond c/c (without black fill in the lines); and an even-less-often-seen pattern of tiny diamonds (almost a "barleycorn" finish). I have examples of the first three, and I've seen photos of the fourth. (Of course, there could easily be other variants as well.)

 

Until this thread came along, I hadn't focused on trying to establish a correlation between the shape and size of the Inlaid Nib cutout, on the one hand, and the specific diamond pattern or material, on the other. I will duly check on my pens, when I can get to them, and report back.

 

One thing I can confidently say: the three patterns with which I'm personally familiar feel very different. The elongated-diamond has - to my hand at least - a rather "rough" feel; on occasion, my fingers have actually caught in the deeply-incised lines when sliding along the barrel. The Touchdown pen is another matter entirely: the lines are not as deep, and the pattern feels altogether more "finished" and pleasing. (While the squares are larger than those of the Parker 75 Crosshatch Grid - which one might reasonably regard as a sort of benchmark for such pens - the feeling is similar to that of the Parker.) And the zigag-diamond pattern is very lightly engraved, much like the pattern of the Legacy Victorian: the interest here is mostly visual rather than tactile.

 

I can also attest to the seemingly irrational unpredictability of auction prices for these models. While Sterling Parker 75s, for example, seem invariably to command robust prices, I've seen the Sheaffers finish all over the place - sometimes at shockingly low figures.

 

Irrespective of model: lovely pens, lovely writers, and often - for the patient and watchful - attractive bargains. But Imperial prices do seem to be rising across the board, so if I had an interest in one of the Sterling pens, I would act with considered haste.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

Edited June 12, 2008 by Univer

[southpaw]

Here are a couple of photos of my TD Sterling Imperial next to a Valor:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/michaelwhitesides/ValorImperialcapped.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/michaelwhitesides/ValorImperialposted.jpg

[MrStuff]

One thing I can confidently say: the three patterns with which I'm personally familiar feel very different. The elongated-diamond has - to my hand at least - a rather "rough" feel; on occasion, my fingers have actually caught in the deeply-incised lines when sliding along the barrel. The Touchdown pen is another matter entirely: the lines are not as deep, and the pattern feels altogether more "finished" and pleasing. (While the squares are larger than those of the Parker 75 Crosshatch Grid - which one might reasonably regards as a sort of benchmark for such pens - the feeling is similar to that of the Parker.) And the zigag-diamond pattern is very lightly engraved, much like the pattern of the Legacy Victorian: the interest here is mostly visual rather than tactile.

Strange. My elongated diamond C/C version (the one shown with the pencil in the thread you linked to) does not feel rough in any way. It is very smooth and I can't imagine how anyone could catch a finger. A nail possibly, but not a finger. Perhaps mine is more used and worn, but I'm not convinced it was used that much by my father.

 

I can also attest to the seemingly irrational unpredictability of auction prices for these models. While Sterling Parker 75s, for example, seem invariably to command robust prices, I've seen the Sheaffers finish all over the place - sometimes at shockingly low figures.

Fully agree. There seem to be 5 on EBay at the moment, although I think all of them are the cartridge version. I can't see the (presumably) TD version that started this thread (perhaps because I am in the UK).

 

Irrespective of model: lovely pens, lovely writers, and often - for the patient and watchful - attractive bargains. But Imperial prices do seem to be rising across the board, so if I had an interest in one of the Sterling pens, I would act with considered haste.

Couldn't agree more.

 

Cheers,

Mark.

 

 

[Glenn-SC]

Both of mine have a squeeze converter in them.

[Univer]

...snip...

Strange. My elongated diamond C/C version (the one shown with the pencil in the thread you linked to) does not feel rough in any way. It is very smooth and I can't imagine how anyone could catch a finger. A nail possibly, but not a finger. Perhaps mine is more used and worn, but I'm not convinced it was used that much by my father.

...snip...

Hi Mark,

 

Interesting! More incentive - I really shouldn't require any - to get my collection fully unpacked and squared away. Maybe I'm remembering the gold-filled version. It's the elongated "points" of the diamonds that seem to have a tendency to catch my skin - not horribly objectionable, but noticeable. Or maybe the problem's with the skin rather than the pen.... :hmm1:

 

At any rate, it's nice to see these pens get their due.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

 

[J English Smith]

Univer - No, I think you're dead on. In my father-in-law's things I found a NOS Imperial last week, c/c model, and noticed that the points do "catch" the skin - a very odd tactile feeling. I can't decide how I feel about it so I'm waiting to ink the pen...

 

They're pretty, though at the time I preferred the P75 and I think I still do. But they do write very nicely. I did ink an Imperial VIII with a touchdown filler and the nib is buttery and superb.

[QM2]

I can't see the (presumably) TD version that started this thread (perhaps because I am in the UK).

 

I didn't start the thread in response to a specific version or a particular ebay auction.

But the the one I mentioned is the notorious seller benzvio:

http://cgi.ebay.com/SHEAFFER-IMPERIAL-PIST...Q2em118Q2el1247

 

item described as:

"SHEAFFER IMPERIAL PIST FP"

"50's , Sheaffer Imperial sterling silver , piston ink sys"

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2008 by QM2

[david i]

Some Eyecandy.

 

http://removed.xyz/websitesalespics/pen2224sm.jpg

 

I have or have had both filling styles. Like the touchdown a wee bit better.

 

d

 

[QM2]

As Brownieeeee rightly points out, there were several different Sterling Imperial patterns that could conceivably be termed "diamond" or "crosshatch" patterns. At a bare minimum, there's the elongated-diamond c/c; the "square" diamond Touchdown; a less-often-seen zigzag-diamond c/c (without black fill in the lines); and an even-less-often-seen pattern of tiny diamonds (almost a "barleycorn" finish). I have examples of the first three, and I've seen photos of the fourth. (Of course, there could easily be other variants as well.)

 

Thank you for pointing this out. I have been looking at photos of this pen for over a year and did not explicitly notice the distinction between squared vs elongated diamonds. I've never seen a photo of both side-by-side, so I guess the difference just didn't jump out. Definitely never seen the zig-zag or the mini-diamond.

 

So is it a known fact that the long-diamond pattern was only made in the CC version and never as a touchdown? Or are there some rare touchdowns out there with the long-diamond pattern as well? Unfortunately, I like them both, which now means I want both pens.

 

Univer, when you do unpack your collection, if you can chime in by sharing the descriptions of of your models, it would be much appreciated!

 

QM2

[MrStuff]

I can't see the (presumably) TD version that started this thread (perhaps because I am in the UK).

 

I didn't start the thread in response to a specific version or a particular ebay auction.

But the the one I mentioned is the notorious seller benzvio:

http://cgi.ebay.com/SHEAFFER-IMPERIAL-PIST...Q2em118Q2el1247

 

item described as:

"SHEAFFER IMPERIAL PIST FP"

"50's , Sheaffer Imperial sterling silver , piston ink sys"

 

Very strange. This one doesn't come up on EBay for me at all regardless of the search strings I put in place (even including copying the entire description) unless I actually enter the auction number.

 

Anyway, even though this is a touchdown version (I guess the seller doesn't know what he has, sees the knob at the end of the barrel and ssumes it's a piston), and

comes with the ballpen, it's still well overpriced. A C/C version went for $100 on EBay last night - the ballpens are virtually worthless ($20-$30) so the highlighted listing

is probably around $100 over the odds.....

 

Is it any coincidence that the EBay seller ID contains "Benz"?????

 

Cheers,

Mark.

[david i]

I can't see the (presumably) TD version that started this thread (perhaps because I am in the UK).

 

I didn't start the thread in response to a specific version or a particular ebay auction.

But the the one I mentioned is the notorious seller benzvio:

http://cgi.ebay.com/SHEAFFER-IMPERIAL-PIST...Q2em118Q2el1247

 

item described as:

"SHEAFFER IMPERIAL PIST FP"

"50's , Sheaffer Imperial sterling silver , piston ink sys"

 

Very strange. This one doesn't come up on EBay for me at all regardless of the search strings I put in place (even including copying the entire description) unless I actually enter the auction number.

 

Anyway, even though this is a touchdown version (I guess the seller doesn't know what he has, sees the knob at the end of the barrel and ssumes it's a piston), and

comes with the ballpen, it's still well overpriced. A C/C version went for $100 on EBay last night - the ballpens are virtually worthless ($20-$30) so the highlighted listing

is probably around $100 over the odds.....

 

Is it any coincidence that the EBay seller ID contains "Benz"?????

 

Cheers,

Mark.

 

I don't follow. Why would a pen be overpriced simply because a pen sold for $100 on ebay last night. If one had sold for $500 on ebay last night, would the pen now be underpriced? If the set is mint (accuracy of ads always being an important- if separate- issue), then the set appears priced not unreasonably, and offers are entertained.

 

Do keep in mind that an ebay sale represents a simple datum, and that more data is needed to generate price ranges.

 

I've sold couple nice non-mint pens and sets of this sort in the $200-240 range.

 

regards

david

 

 

[QM2]

Do keep in mind that an ebay sale represents a simple datum, and that more data is needed to generate price ranges.

 

David, I agree with you that ebay prices are not an indicator of real market value.

 

 

I've sold couple nice non-mint pens and sets of this sort in the $200-240 range.

 

However, your prices (as well as Richard Binder's, Main Street Pens, etc) are not entirely indicative either. When people buy from you, they (willingly) pay a bit extra for the security of the pen being extremely clean, properly restored, and coming from a highly trusted source.

 

In other words, the amount I am willing to pay you or Richard for a vintage pen, is higher than the amount I would pay a stranger for that pen.

 

As for the seller benzvio, I would not pay him any amount for a pen. Just run a search for his name here.

 

QM2

 

 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2008 by QM2

[david i]

Do keep in mind that an ebay sale represents a simple datum, and that more data is needed to generate price ranges.

 

David, I agree with you that ebay prices are not an indicator of real market value.

 

 

I've sold couple nice non-mint pens and sets of this sort in the $200-240 range.

 

However, your prices (as well as Richard Binder's, Main Street Pens, etc) are not entirely indicative either. When people buy from you, they (willingly) pay a bit extra for the security of the pen being extremely clean, properly restored, and coming from a highly trusted source.

 

In other words, the amount I am willing to pay you or Richard for a vintage pen, is higher than the amount I would pay a stranger for that pen.

 

As for the seller benzvio, I would not pay him any amount for a pen. Just run a search for his name here.

 

QM2

 

I hear you. And... thanks for the kind words.

 

I'm not trying to hyper-analyze a given price on ebay. Indeed, i'm arguing against pulling too much conclusion from too little data.

 

Obviously, my bias is to agree that a pen sold by someone one trusts (and different buyers have different trust in different sellers of course) when it associates with a warranty, often can (should???) carry bit of premium.

 

I do recognize, too, that there is no formal (eg. official) pricing structure for any pen. No formal rules. No high volume market to establish "obvious" prices. Grading varies, venue varies, demand varies.

 

Generally, i would hope that my own prices are higher (more bias LOL ) than what is paid on ebay for a raw pen sold with limited description, lack of warranty and bad picture. If not, i'm not charging enough. But, just as real bargains can be had on ebay (eg. $500-retail pen found for $10), do to do some pens go high in open bidding, especially for scarce, high cachet items for which bidders (sometimes gamblers) don't routinely enounter at the websites. Good pens stand on their own. And... sometimes a B-I-N can try to claim grand bucks out of proportion to usual retail.

 

I think folks need to consider Ebay for what it is, rather than resent it for not meeting their expectations.

 

 

regards

 

d

Edited June 13, 2008 by david i

[Univer]

As Brownieeeee rightly points out, there were several different Sterling Imperial patterns that could conceivably be termed "diamond" or "crosshatch" patterns. At a bare minimum, there's the elongated-diamond c/c; the "square" diamond Touchdown; a less-often-seen zigzag-diamond c/c (without black fill in the lines); and an even-less-often-seen pattern of tiny diamonds (almost a "barleycorn" finish). I have examples of the first three, and I've seen photos of the fourth. (Of course, there could easily be other variants as well.)

 

Thank you for pointing this out. I have been looking at photos of this pen for over a year and did not explicitly notice the distinction between squared vs elongated diamonds. I've never seen a photo of both side-by-side, so I guess the difference just didn't jump out. Definitely never seen the zig-zag or the mini-diamond.

 

So is it a known fact that the long-diamond pattern was only made in the CC version and never as a touchdown? Or are there some rare touchdowns out there with the long-diamond pattern as well? Unfortunately, I like them both, which now means I want both pens.

 

Univer, when you do unpack your collection, if you can chime in by sharing the descriptions of of your models, it would be much appreciated!

 

QM2

Hi there,

 

My pleasure. I actually think I may be able to get at the newer Sheaffers without too much trouble - let me see what I can do.

 

I've never encountered the elongated-diamond pattern - gold-filled or sterling - in anything other than the c/c version. I'm reluctant to draw an absolute inference, but my guess is that this pattern does not occur in the Touchdown version.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

 

[MrStuff]

Anyway, even though this is a touchdown version (I guess the seller doesn't know what he has, sees the knob at the end of the barrel and ssumes it's a piston), and

comes with the ballpen, it's still well overpriced. A C/C version went for $100 on EBay last night - the ballpens are virtually worthless ($20-$30) so the highlighted listing

is probably around $100 over the odds.....

I don't follow. Why would a pen be overpriced simply because a pen sold for $100 on ebay last night. If one had sold for $500 on ebay last night, would the pen now be underpriced? If the set is mint (accuracy of ads always being an important- if separate- issue), then the set appears priced not unreasonably, and offers are entertained.

OK, I guess I should have added a suitable caveat in my original mail. Here goes:

 

In my humble opinion the buyer, who clearly has little knowledge of the item he is selling, makes no statement or guarantee regarding the functionality of the pen and has what I would consider to be very poor feedback, is asking a price that I consider to be around $100 higher than you are likely to have to spend to buy a similar pen from another seller on EBay.

 

Do keep in mind that an ebay sale represents a simple datum, and that more data is needed to generate price ranges.

I have been monitoring the price of these sterling Sheaffer pens on EBay over the last few months and most have gone for between $60 to $150, with a mid-point of around $100. Add in the ballpen and $130 sounds reasonable to me. Of course, most of these have been the C/C versions and not the touchdown so add another $50 for rarity value and you have $180. Roughly $100 less than the seller is asking. (I wouldn't pay that much of a premium for the TD version - maybe I'm abnormal in that regard.)

 

Look at the current completed listings on EBay for the history and make your own judgement on the current market rate for buying from EBay. (Note - not all of these match the description of the pens I'm talking about - I didn't want to waste time getting the filter refined well enough. I've filtered these out manually in my assessment.)

 

I've sold couple nice non-mint pens and sets of this sort in the $200-240 range.

 

regards

david

I agree with QM2 on this. I would expect to pay more for a pen from an established pen restorer and seller with a warranty and good backup in case of problems than I would for a purchase from EBay, especially a buyer with this kind of knowledge and feedback.

 

I know how good these pens are (or at least can be) and I think they should be worth much more than they price typically achieve on EBay. Maybe there's just too much supply and not enough demand at the moment.

 

Cheers,

Mark.

[Nihontochicken]

FWIW, I have a rather minty FP/BP Imperial Sterling set in the elongated diamond pattern (FP a squeeze filler). In fact, the diamonds on the FP are very sharply cut and do indeed catch on my skin when I run my fingers along the cap or barrel. But this is not the case with the matching BP. Go figure. In my experience, there is a Fleabay premium on the Touchdown version, just as there is for a Vac 51 over an Aero, though the squeeze fillers are (arguably) better and longer lived. Just the "neat-o" factor, I guess. Versus the Parker 75 Sterling, the Sheaffer Imperial Sterling is IMO nearly as good looking, excepting the stubby plain clip, and I prefer the greater girth at the Sheaffer grip, though the Parker is ahead in terms of design of its triangular section with rotating nib.