Waterman Lever Box Frames (a poll and a proposition)

[Nick A]

I have done some investigating into manufacturing lever box frames for vintage Waterman pens. Not some cheap junk or something cast, but a really good quality part.

 

The tooling is not cheap, but the project interests me. Even after the tooling is done, then there is the stamping, forming and plating. I would be sitting on what could potentially be a lifetime supply of lever box frames... thousands of them. My poll is an attempt to see what price point is attractive for these and to see if I could at least break even on the costs.

 

My metallurgical engineer has some ideas to make the frame itself stronger than the original in regards to material and a slight change to the design that would not be noticed from the outside of the pen. The upper tab would be folded out so they could be reinstalled as the original lever box.

 

I realize there are several sizes of lever boxes (52 1/2, 52/55, 56/58) with the pivot point and the H support in different places. As I recall, the 56 and 58 levers are identical.

 

To solve the variable pivot point (rivet hole) problem, they would be undrilled for the rivet that holds the lever itself. My idea is that the original lever can be reused, just replace the box. A repair person would need to drill the hole for the lever and then install the old lever in the new lever box. (Drilling is a fairly simple operation, so I may offer some pre-drilled in the most common 52/55 size.)

 

The second challenge is that H reinforcement support tab at the "back". I think this can be moved to the 56/58 size position, closer to the tail end of the barrel. Because the frame will be stronger it is not so important that this support directly reinforce the pivot point.

 

These would be available in two finishes, nickel plated and gold plated to match the majority of existing levers. If there is a call for it, some could be chrome finished for the more modern vintage pens that use lever boxes.

 

My intent would be to makes these very nearly identical in appearance and finish to the original lever box frames, so the old levers match the new boxes. The differing position of the support and the reinforcement at the back would show that these were replacements, so one who was concerned about originality or misrepresentation could see with some examination that the lever box has been replaced.

 

Comments and observations are welcomed.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Nick A

[kirchh]

The second challenge is that H reinforcement support tab at the "back". I think this can be moved to the 56/58 size position, closer to the tail end of the barrel. Because the frame will be stronger it is not so important that this support directly reinforce the pivot point.

You can't change the location of the horizontal element. In my analysis, it does not reinforce the pivot point at all, but rather its function is to serve as a travel stop for the lever.

 

These would be available in two finishes, nickel plated and gold plated to match the majority of existing levers. If there is a call for it, some could be chrome finished for the more modern vintage pens that use lever boxes.

 

My intent would be to makes these very nearly identical in appearance and finish to the original lever box frames, so the old levers match the new boxes. The differing position of the support and the reinforcement at the back would show that these were replacements, so one who was concerned about originality or misrepresentation could see with some examination that the lever box has been replaced.

 

Comments and observations are welcomed.

I would very much encourage you to make these parts in such a way that not only can they be easily distinguished from originals, but also that they can't be easily altered to look like originals. The differing position of the horizontal piece is not in play as explained above, and the additional reinforcement could be easily removed so as to mimic an original box. Generally, subtractive 'tells' are more effective -- rather than adding material (which could simply be removed), one would remove material (which is considerably more difficult to replace). For example, you might drill a hole through the top-rear tab, or notch it (harder to fill), or you might pre-drill multiple pivot holes such that the unused ones would be visible when the lever is lifted (I don't think this would weaken the box, as the used pivot hole would still be the first to fail). You could also stamp the interior sides of the box, or drill or stamp the travel stop.

 

--Daniel

[Nick A]

Is the H reinforcement really necessary as a travel stop? With the design of the lever with pressure bar attached, I think it would be very difficult for the lever to "flip" over as it does on say, an Esterbrook or vintage Sheaffer. With the variable pivot point, the throwback can only be so far. The pressure bar is attached to the lever, so it hits the back of the barrel and can travel no further. With a new sac installed, it would be very difficult (I think) to "flip" the lever. I will do some experiments with this. As changing the position of the support would require another die, that would probably limit production to the 52/55 size lever box only. I do have an idea for making the support variable, to the determined by the installer, but it was discarded as a complication and weakening of the design.

 

As far as persons using these for nefarious purposes, you make some good points. I am willing to make some effort to make it distinguishable from an original piece, however I am not willing to make it weaker or appear from first glance that it is a a replacement part. For instance, I lock the doors and windows of my house. If someone really wants to break in, they will. I could install steel bars and gates on all my windows and doors, but if they still wanted to get in, they would find a way. Criminals are amazingly creative. I would rather have a working pen with an original looking modern replacement part than a broken pen, even if that part were not original. I certainly do not want to stir up an argument ala hard rubber reblackening.

[kirchh]

Is the H reinforcement really necessary as a travel stop?

That is its function.

 

With the design of the lever with pressure bar attached, I think it would be very difficult for the lever to "flip" over as it does on say, an Esterbrook or vintage Sheaffer. With the variable pivot point, the throwback can only be so far. The pressure bar is attached to the lever, so it hits the back of the barrel and can travel no further.

I'm not sure why you say this. The pressure bar in a Waterman lever-filler most assuredly does not hit the back of the barrel when the lever is vertical.

 

With a new sac installed, it would be very difficult (I think) to "flip" the lever. I will do some experiments with this.

You will find that if you remove the lever travel stop, the lever will flip unimpeded. The stop is essential.

 

As far as persons using these for nefarious purposes, you make some good points. I am willing to make some effort to make it distinguishable from an original piece, however I am not willing to make it weaker or appear from first glance that it is a a replacement part.

I agree that you should not weaken the mechanism; none of my suggestions would do so. I agree that when the lever is closed, it should not appear at first glance to be a reproduction part. I think it is eminently sensible that the reproduction nature of the part be easily discernable when the lever is opened.

 

I lock the doors and windows of my house. If someone really wants to break in, they will. I could install steel bars and gates on all my windows and doors, but if they still wanted to get in, they would find a way.

Inded, but I'm sure we both agree that it would be more difficult and thus the additional protection would serve as a deterrent. Even thieves perform cost-benefit analyses. If all a crooked pen dealer needed to do was to file back an added piece, that would present a considerably lower bar to fraud than if s/he had to fill in missing material or an interior stamp and leave an undetectable result.

 

Criminals are amazingly creative.

Indeed, but you conflate the issue of making a part completely fraudproof (likely nearly impossible) with that of making it substantially fraud-resistant due to the effort required to alter it to make it look original. Criminals will find an amazingly creative way to do so, but the idea is to make it sufficiently labor-intensive so as to effectively neutralize the benefit of the effort.

 

I would rather have a working pen with an original looking modern replacement part than a broken pen, even if that part were not original. I certainly do not want to stir up an argument ala hard rubber reblackening.

I understand your personal desire to have an original-looking replacement part, but when you set out to make reproduction parts you assume a burden of responsibility for ensuring, to the extent possible, that such parts are easily spotted and are not easily altered so as to defraud. That responsibility is not to be taken lightly.

 

--Daniel

[Vintagepens]

This would seem to be a very useful project -- but I fear that the present demand is unlikely to repay the investment. Although the demand would seem to be greatest for the most common sizes, original spares in those sizes are also the most common, sharply limiting the possible market price for repros. I wonder if concentrating on the largest sizes might not be the most economically viable, since a good price could be charged for repros of items that simply cannot be had in the original.

 

Daniel is completely correct about the necessity of the stop. In addition to stiffening the frame, it prevents damage in case the lever is pushed forward, where the tabs at the end of the lever would be forcibly pulled out of the pressure bar track, bending them out of shape.

 

I don't see the point of multiple pivot holes. One crossbar position, one pivot position. If marker holes were to be drilled to indicate that the frame is a repro, I'd make them very small and at the very end of the frame, not the middle. Some sort of mark would be a good idea, I think -- although I suspect that if the frames were really well done, collectors might find them nearly as acceptable as modern replacement button-filler pressure bars. This would certainly be the case with overlay pens, where the frame would hardly be visible, even with the lever lifted.

 

How about changing the shape or dimensions of the crossbar slightly? Making it just a bit longer or narrower, and/or making the back end radiused instead of cut straight across? Making it slightly longer would make the assembly stronger. Yes, it could be filed down shorter, but I doubt the impact on value would be sufficient to make the work worthwhile.

[Buzz J]

Somewhere I heard Gary Lehrer had some lever boxes made, but perhaps it was just wishful thinking.

 

John

[kirchh]

How about changing the shape or dimensions of the crossbar slightly? Making it just a bit longer or narrower, and/or making the back end radiused instead of cut straight across? Making it slightly longer would make the assembly stronger.

I don't see the crossbar serving any structural function whatsoever, as it seems to me that the box is subject to no stresses that would be constrained by the crossbar, so I don't understand how lengthening it would have any effect on the strength of the assembly in a meaningful way. I think a hole through the crossbar wouldn't compromise the part at all; a sharp stamp on the crossbar might also serve and could also indicate the maker.

 

--Daniel

[Vintagepens]

I don't see the crossbar serving any structural function whatsoever, as it seems to me that the box is subject to no stresses that would be constrained by the crossbar, so I don't understand how lengthening it would have any effect on the strength of the assembly in a meaningful way.

 

In a perfect world, this would be true. In the real world, one often runs across lever boxes that are distorted -- yes, due to mishandling -- where the side strips are no longer completely straight and parallel. The crossbar does help protect against sideways stresses.

[Ron Z]

In a perfect world, this would be true. In the real world, one often runs across lever boxes that are distorted -- yes, due to mishandling -- where the side strips are no longer completely straight and parallel. The crossbar does help protect against sideways stresses.

 

Agreed.

 

I have a stash of reproduction lever boxes that I got from Joe Cali. I've had to drill different holes for different levers, but they have made it possible to repair a fair number of pens. There isn't a big demand, so it wouldn't be a quick sale, but they are sometimes needed, especially if the person doesn't have access to a lot of parts.

[artaddict]

How would one install a Waterman lever box & lever?

[kirchh]

I don't see the crossbar serving any structural function whatsoever, as it seems to me that the box is subject to no stresses that would be constrained by the crossbar, so I don't understand how lengthening it would have any effect on the strength of the assembly in a meaningful way.

 

In a perfect world, this would be true. In the real world, one often runs across lever boxes that are distorted -- yes, due to mishandling -- where the side strips are no longer completely straight and parallel. The crossbar does help protect against sideways stresses.

I was thinking about the situation when the lever was in use, but you're right about the potential for distortion during handling.

 

I wouldn't find a maker's stamp on the crossbar to be objectionable, and I think branding such parts is, in general, an excellent idea.

 

--Daniel