How many 'collect' non-functioning pens?
Curtis L. Russell
Maybe buying a couple of more flexible older(working) pens was the
beginning of the dam breaking, but lately I've purchased four pens,
all older, all non-functioning. None of them cost over $ 10 and they
all were different in at least one way from other pens that I own. I
have no real intent of making them functional (hell, I write almost
entirely with the same three pens now, so I hardly need them to
function), although I will take it to a local guru and have him look
at them.
Anyone else keep non-functioning pens in their collection, or do you
toss/trade/lose them if they don't work? If anyone does own a
non-functioning pen, what's the most you'd pay (I'm guessing my
threshhold is around $ 25 for a nice, unique pen)?
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Clawhound
I have a few that I intend to make functional. They will be in my
collection until I can find better examples. Eventually they will be
restored or sold off.
Some pens will always be worth that extra something no matter what their
working condition. For those very rare pens, doing nothing can be far
better for their value than doing something.
CH
RAClifford
>Anyone else keep non-functioning pens in their collection, or do you
toss/trade/lose them if they don't work? If anyone does own a non-functioning
pen, what's the most you'd pay (I'm guessing my threshhold is around $ 25 for a
nice, unique pen)?
Well if you are speaking of vintage pens in need of restoration, there is quite
a range. 99% of the pens I find are non working, but I enjoy getting them up
and running.
If I found a "no name" pen I would not pay more than 1 buck for it, on the
other hand, when I stumble on the Parker Sr. mandarin, I might go a couple
hundred or so. It all depends on the pen.
QuarterHorseman
anywhere on the Internet, collect nonfunctioning pens. Or I should say
collect pens and leave them in their as-purchased condition. We are
talking pens in the thousands-of-dollars range here and sometimes well
into five figures. It's a whole 'nother world of collecting and the
rules are totally different.
Earl Camembert
<n...@mail.nomail.nomail> wrote:
>Many of the *very* serious collectors, the ones you never see posting
>anywhere on the Internet, collect nonfunctioning pens.
Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.
KCat
news:ci5gtj$9sr$1...@pyrite.mv.net...
> Many of the *very* serious collectors, the ones you never see posting
> anywhere on the Internet, collect nonfunctioning pens. Or I should say
I would take issue with the term "serious."
To each his/her own. Makes sense they wouldn't post to such lowly places as
this. How can you really discuss and evaluate a pen that you've never seen?
I suppose it's akin to evaluating a famous painting in a book - it seems
very limiting.
BL
> I would take issue with the term "serious."
>
> To each his/her own. Makes sense they wouldn't
> post to such lowly places as this. How can you
> really discuss and evaluate a pen that you've never
> seen? I suppose it's akin to evaluating a famous
> painting in a book - it seems very limiting.
Why are you guys taking what QH said so personally? It's not personal,
really. "Serious" collectors are folks for whom pens are more than
utilitarian objects... they're important bits of history. Many of these
folks build complete collections of a particular manufacturer's pens...
not to use them but out of respect and admiration for the past. They
probably also collect paraphernalia, advertisements, records from
manufacturers (including design drawings, balance sheets, patent info.,
you name it). These are folks who are interested in history and
minutia... For them, pen collecting is a scholarly endeavor. Often the
most perfect examples of vintage pens are non-functioning (e.g., have
petrified sacs, frozen fillers, whatever). Because such pens are often
priced to the stratosphere, only "serious" collectors are likely to
express interest in them. Personally I think it's great that such people
are out there because they are preserving fountain pen history (a good
number of them are writing about it and making pens, catalog reprints,
etc., available to the rest of us). Don't assume these people are
elitists... Many are regular Joes and Janes who started collecting old
fountain pens before collecting old fountain pens became a hobby. QH
wasn't saying that this is what all pen aficionados should do, but
rather this is what some very serious pen aficionados do. I think the
term "serious" is generally well understood and not considered
elitist. --- Bern
john cline ii
"BL" wrote:
Very good points, all. But I thought serious collectors were those who
didn't get looked at with suspicion by Frank Dubiel because we were far
too jovial and discussed too many things that had nothing to do with
pens! :)
You know, people like Satrap, Lattie (where is he, anywho?), coaster
riding fools, etc.
john cline ii, who just had to!
|
|
Clawhound
You know what he meant. He meant serious as in "big wallet". He wasn't
impuning any of us.
CH
Curtis L. Russell
>"Serious" collectors are folks for whom pens are more than
>utilitarian objects... they're important bits of history.
I'd look pretty serious if I spent tens of thousands on a pen. My wife
would look downright grim.
That's the price of a tandem and two singles. Maybe even some left
over for water bottles...
PENDEMONIUM
that pen collecting has changed a lot over the years and the term pen
collector seems to be ever evolving. About 10 years or so ago when
people first started talking pens online, the majority were collectors -
we gathered pens, function was not a concern, in fact most vintage pens
did not work. The concern was the historical aspect of the pens;
researching, identifying - it made no matter whether they worked and in
fact many times the guts are stripped out in order not to risk potential
damage. I still tell people that if they're going to collect a pen and
never use it to remove the sac or diaphragm and eliminate much of the
risk of altering condition. I don't think that pen collecting totally
relates to value of the pen, ie: serious collectors don't necessarily
collect just expensive pens. I have some of those, but some of my
favorites are unsual examples that just aren't easily found - weird
colors, prototypes, stuff like that - many of these would hold
relatively low value to another collector and the market in general
because they aren't always well documented or well known. Not so long
ago, it was a novel idea to actually use these vintage pens! When there
were questions about condition, that didn't involve whther it worked or
not! So, I guess I'm a serious pen collector in this respect because I
do collect pens that I would never dream of writing with.
On most of the online pen forums now, talk focuses around new pens and
restored to writability vintage pens. I collect those, too. But the
pens I buy to write with are just that - they aren't ones that I
consider part of my pen collection. Some are new, some are old, but the
sole reason I buy them is becaue I like the way they write. So, I have
a collection of historical pens and I have another collection of pens I
like to write with. Easy enough to do both.
I think there are an awful lot of people in our pen community who cross
over into collecting from a historical standpoint and collecting pens to
use on an everyday basis. Nothing wrong with doing either, you just
have to remember who you're talking to and what they're talking about
when they say they are a "pen collector", a term that has come to have
many meanings.
Just some food for thought ... Sam
PGBarto
collecting topic. I started out writing with FPs, and still buy my pens with
the intent of getting them all into the writable state. In vintage pens, I
accumulate Watermen and Onotos. The 'men all are writers, and I''m less
emotionally attached. I'm much more willing to buy an Onoto with little or no
likliehood of getting it functional just to put in a row with its mates.
As far as serious/non-serious (frivolous?) collectors, I have no illusions of
ever having a historically significant collection. But it sure SEEMS serious
when I get sniped at the last second!
gary
BL
Sounds like you're a serious rider. :) As Sam pointed out, the amount
of money one drops on pens isn't necessarily the defining characteristic
of a "serious" collector. One could be a "serious" collector of economy
or no-name pens (perhaps in an attempt to trace their origins or
whatever) and spend relatively little money. Alternatively, someone with
more money than sense could drop a ton of money on a mint-in-box Parker
Duofold in Moderne Black and Pearl with perfect color, have a sac put in
it, and use it, and having spent all that money wouldn't make that
person a serious collector. Serious isn't about money, it's about one's
approach to collecting. No one is making a value judgment about which
approach is better. The better approach is the one that makes you
happy. --- Bernadette
BL
PGBarto wrote:
> <>
> As far as serious/non-serious (frivolous?)
casual sounds better
B
kg
news:4146F028...@pendemonium.com...
> I always find this an interesting discussion and a good reminder to me
> that pen collecting has changed a lot over the years and the term pen
> I think there are an awful lot of people in our pen community who cross
> over into collecting from a historical standpoint and collecting pens to
> use on an everyday basis. Nothing wrong with doing either, you just
> have to remember who you're talking to and what they're talking about
> when they say they are a "pen collector", a term that has come to have
> many meanings.
>
> Just some food for thought ... Sam
Great explanation of the current reality of "collecting". I find myself
still more in the accumulator phase. I've begun to focus a bit, but still
enjoy understanding something new and different about a pen line. I'm above
all else, a user of the pens, so I like them to be restorable. Next, I'm
cheap. While I've spent more than a hundred dollars on a vintage pen, I
would rather not. I guess this takes me out of the Serious Historical
Collector category and that's fine by me. Spending thousands of dollars for
a few pens somehow doesn't square with my view of what's important in the
world. I'm not sure how I rationalize accumulating over a hundred pens, but
that's another story.
My biggest pen thrill is finding pens in the wild, at junk stores, estate
auctions, etc., that are sumgai's and that I can restore to workable
condition and enjoy using on a daily basis. I will admit, the real
treasures are getting few and far between, but it happens. This time last
year I picked up a Waterman 452 in great condition, except for the missing
clip, grey Skyline, Eversharp 5th ave, both in wonderful condition, a Lucy
Curve ring top, bchr in super condition, except missing the nib, a green
striped Vacumatic, 1936 three band, lockdown filler double jewel, the
smaller size, missing the blind cap tassie and jewel, and a Parker 21. All
were in two boxes of other junk that I ended up paying a total of $5.00 on
the bids, then sold all but the pens in one box to the other bidder for
$2.00 for a net of three bucks. Now I'll tell you, that's a thrill. I'm
still hunting for some of the parts and deciding what to do about the 452
clip. But, all the pens are working and the 452 is a wonderful writing pen,
my first real flex nib. The vac has a nice semi-flex two tone nib and it
functions very well and is a very pretty pen. So much so that I'm found
myself hunting cheap vacs on ebay - not too many to be had, at least
cheaply! Anyway, the thrill of the hunt and the restoration is what I enjoy
most. I'll leave the "serious" collecting to others and perhaps I'll find
some pens to sell to them!
One thing about it, there's room for all of us in this obsession.
kelly g.
KCat
news:c7qdnULYvJT...@comcast.com...
> KCat wrote:
>
> > I would take issue with the term "serious."
> >
> > To each his/her own. Makes sense they wouldn't
> > post to such lowly places as this. How can you
> > really discuss and evaluate a pen that you've never
> > seen? I suppose it's akin to evaluating a famous
> > painting in a book - it seems very limiting.
>
> Why are you guys taking what QH said so personally? It's not personal,
> really.
uh.. taking it "seriously"? :-) no pun intended, right? I'm not taking it
seriously. I'm not offended or anything. I'm giving my opinion. QH merely
offered information. His words seemed to imply that "serious" collectors
are somehow above the rest of us "users." That is what people are
responding to. But I reserve the right to express my opinion as well. Why
are you jumping on me for that? I said, to each their own. That means
"hey, you do what you want and it don't make no nevermind to me." Then I
said I don't understand it nor how one can fully evaluate a pen without
holding it in the hand and using it. I still think that. There's truth in
there - even if it is my truth. It has nothing to do with motivations or
anything else. It has nothing to do with finding fault with collectors who
don't ever take a pen out of a box. It's simply a matter of differing
opinion.
> etc., available to the rest of us). Don't assume these people are
> elitists...
> term "serious" is generally well understood and not considered
> elitist. --- Bern
well, obviously that's your opinion and you're welcome to it but the fact
that people reacted says you are at least partly incorrect. Some people
*do* consider it elitist.
I have every hope that most of my pens will be passed on and that they will
be appreciated both for their history and their quality. The fact that I
use them doesn't make them of any lesser personal value - either to me or to
my offspring. And for me in fact, the fact that they are used adds to their
history. I have a pen that belonged to my GM and she used it. And it
delights me to think that I am holding the same pen that she doodled with
while on the phone or used to write little letters to my mom when they were
separated by 1000s of miles.
give me some credit for having the ability to see different views and have
my own opinion. There is nothing "wrong" in either view of pen
collecting/use. Nor did I ever say there was.
KCat
> still more in the accumulator phase.
I am not a collector. I use the term only because there is no board for
alt.fountainpens.users. I'm not even an accumulator. I have 18 pens and
that's where I want it to stay. But I can certainly appreciate the desire
to have more.
> I've begun to focus a bit, but still
> enjoy understanding something new and different about a pen line. I'm
> above
> all else, a user of the pens, so I like them to be restorable. Next, I'm
> cheap.
heh.. yeah. that is partly why I have 18 pens (many of which were gifts or
very low discounts) and not 100.
> While I've spent more than a hundred dollars on a vintage pen, I
> would rather not. I guess this takes me out of the Serious Historical
> Collector category and that's fine by me. Spending thousands of dollars
for
> a few pens somehow doesn't square with my view of what's important in the
> world. I'm not sure how I rationalize accumulating over a hundred pens,
but
> that's another story.
well... that's one of the traits of a hobby/obsession isn't it? I can
rationalize the pens I have but my husband will still just shake his head
and call it "cat logic." OTOH, he can't rationalize the number of PC parts
we had accumulated that were not being used. Or the fact that he refuses to
give up his dial Princess Phone from childhood.
> My biggest pen thrill is finding pens in the wild, at junk stores, estate
> auctions, etc.,
I sometimes envy folks who can do that. My daughter found a snorkel for $6
and passed it on to me as a gift. The restoration was interesting to say the
least. But it is a fully functional and cool little pen. I don't use it a
lot but I'm loathe to get rid of it. OTOH, I'm also glad that this
particular bug hasn't bitten too hard or I might very well be at odds with
my hubby and my bank. :-) Fortunately, the good antique stores and auctions
are too far away.
> One thing about it, there's room for all of us in this obsession.
>
> kelly g.
you bet. I appreciated Sam's response and it gave me insight beyond just
the "for the sake of history" rationale for buying non-functional pens.
BL
blandolf wrote:
>> Why are you guys taking what QH said so
>> personally? It's not personal, really.
>
> uh.. taking it "seriously"? :-) no pun intended,
> right? I'm not taking it seriously. I'm not
> offended or anything. I'm giving my opinion. QH
> merely offered information. His words seemed to
> imply that "serious" collectors are somehow above
> the rest of us "users." That is what people are
> responding to. But I reserve the right to express
> my opinion as well. Why are you jumping on me for
> that?
First, I was not jumping on you. That's your interpretation of what I
posted. My intention was to provide an alternative, less disparaging
(for all concerned), interpretation of the word "serious." Second, if
you wish to interpret the term "serious collectors" as meaning
"collectors who think they're somehow above the rest of us users" that's
fine; however, I do think that qualifies as taking it personally. I also
think it's a misinterpretation of
the term, and I think most collectors... the serious ones and the less
serious ones, would agree.
> ... Then I said I don't understand it nor how one
> can fully evaluate a pen without holding it in the
> hand and using it. I still think that.
Do you want an answer to your question or was it a rhetorical one?
> There's truth in there - even if it is my truth.
Sounds like you have your mind made up and you really don't want to
learn from others whose interests in collecting differ from your own.
This may be a huge misinterpretation of what you're saying, and, if so,
I apologize. This medium isn't the best one in which to connect with
other on a more personal basis.
<snip>
> well, obviously that's your opinion and you're
> welcome to it but the fact that people reacted says
> you are at least partly incorrect. Some people
> *do* consider it elitist.
You really don't want to engage in a discussion about epistemology do
you? :) Look, I do not take issue with whether there are people who
consider the term elitist. I also maintain that it is an unnecessarily
pejorative and incorrect interpretation of the term. If you approach a
dealer at a show (almost any dealer will do) and ask him/her if Pete
Kirby is a serious collector of Conklins, he or she will, in a very
matter-of-fact way, respond in the affirmative. I can give you the names
of serious Wahl collectors (e.g., Cliff Harrington), serious MB
collectors (e.g., Axel Huebener), serious Pelikan collectors (e.g., our
own Paul Gloeggler), serious 51 collectors (e.g., Ernesto Soler),
serious Rexall collectors (e.g., Charlie Harles) and on and on. These
people are really nice people. They love their pens, and as far as I
know, don't poo-poo anyone's collecting interests.
> I have every hope that most of my pens will be
> passed on and that they will be appreciated both
> for their history and their quality. The fact
> that I use them doesn't make them of any lesser
> personal value - either to me or to my offspring.
> And for me in fact, the fact that they are used
> adds to their history. I have a pen that belonged
> to my GM and she used it. And it delights me to
> think that I am holding the same pen that she
> doodled with while on the phone or used to write
> little letters to my mom when they were
> separated by 1000s of miles.
This all sounds wonderful. No one was ever questioning how much you
enjoy the hobby or how much your pens mean to you. "Serious" as in
"serious collector" has nothing to do with those things.
> give me some credit for having the ability to see
> different views and have my own opinion.
And give me some credit for at least attempting to give folks a less
negative way of interpreting the term "serious collector."
> There is nothing "wrong" in either view of pen
> collecting/use. Nor did I ever say there was.
I believe we agree on this.
Regards,
Bernadette
KCat
> > ... Then I said I don't understand it nor how one
> > can fully evaluate a pen without holding it in the
> > hand and using it. I still think that.
>
> Do you want an answer to your question or was it a rhetorical one?
to quote my daughter hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... there is no question mark
there. It isn't a question. It is a statement. It's like asking me to
fully understand the male mind when I am female and quite incapable of doing
so. I don't understand the mind of the mint collector regardless of the
many discussions I've seen about the topic. It doesn't mean I disparage it
anymore than I would disparage the male of our species (I happen to think
they're pretty cool.)
> I apologize. This medium isn't the best one in which to connect with
> other on a more personal basis.
yup. it's a misinterpretation. again. it is my "truth", my opinion, that
for me the best use of a pen is well... use. that is *for me* and I don't
begrudge anyone else taking a different approach. You asked why people were
taking it so seriously, I explained why. that some took the wording as
divisive. why should it be anymore complex than that? (not rhetorical and
does have a question mark?)
> > well, obviously that's your opinion and you're
> > welcome to it but the fact that people reacted says
> > you are at least partly incorrect. Some people
> > *do* consider it elitist.
>
> You really don't want to engage in a discussion about epistemology do
> you? :)
hell.. i don't even know what that means. Let's talk practically. someone
said something. a couple of people took offense. it doesn't matter whether
they should have or shouldn't. The fact that they did *proves* IMO that the
word has connotations. if it didn't, rightly or wrongly, we wouldn't be
having this discussion.
whatever - i gotta eat some lunch - low blood sugar and rapid fire debates
do not mix.
KCat - a serious user. ;-)
Clawhound
How about "high stakes?"
Even a low stakes collector can be very serious about what he does and
be as completely dedicated to collecting as the high stakes collectors,
but the high-stakes collectors are simply playing at a different
monetary level.
CH
BL
> ... again. it is my "truth", my opinion, that
> for me the best use of a pen is well... use.
Neither of my posts took issue with this at all.
> ... You asked why people were taking it so
> seriously,
Actually, I said "personally" not "seriously."
> I explained why. that some took the wording
> as divisive. why should it be anymore complex than
> that? (not rhetorical and does have a question
> mark?)
Good question. What's not to understand about this: "Serious
collector," the way most collectors use the term, is not meant to be
disparaging to anyone (people who are serious collectors and those of us
who are not).
> ... Let's talk practically.
I've been trying to do that and clearly I've been failing miserably.
> someone said something.
Agreed.
> a couple of people took offense.
Yepper.
> it doesn't matter whether they should have or
> shouldn't.
I think this is the point at which our positions begin to diverge.
> The fact that they did *proves* IMO that the word
> has connotations. if it didn't, rightly or wrongly,
> we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"Serious collector" captures the meaning in a parsimonious way... Can't
imagine any other term one can use to describe these folks that couldn't
be misconstrued in some way. Suffice it to say (?) that the term
"serious collector" is widely used and accepted to connote a level of
expertise that distinguishes him/her from most collectors. Is that ok,
or is it still offensive?
Hope you enjoyed your lunch... Bernadette
BL
> How about "high stakes?"
Not everyone who spends a lot of money on pens is considered a "serious
collector."
> Even a low stakes collector can be very serious
> about what he does and be as completely dedicated
> to collecting as the high stakes collectors, but
> the high-stakes collectors are simply playing at a
> different monetary level.
I would agree with this.
B
Dave J
"> Anyone else keep non-functioning pens in their collection, or do you
> toss/trade/lose them if they don't work? If anyone does own a
> non-functioning pen, what's the most you'd pay (I'm guessing my
> threshhold is around $ 25 for a nice, unique pen)?
>
Many of my pens are left intentionally "non-functioning." Rubber sacs
produce sulfer as they age ("out gassing") that discolors most plastics.
When you get an example with pefect color, why would you want to ruin it? I
use "user grade" pens, and many that I "collect" are non-functioning.
Dave
Bluesea
> ... it made no matter whether they worked and in
> fact many times the guts are stripped out in order not to risk potential
> damage.
Then there are people like my dad who'd gut a fp, including the nib, so that
he could store industrial-sized needles, thermometers, and such.
<sigh>
--
~~Bluesea~~
Spam is great in musubi but not in email.
Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply.
Dave J
A great reply to the original question - thoughtful and eloquent, a pleasure
to read.
Dave
Free Citizen
--
Best regards,
Free Citizen
http://www.freewebs.com/fpnet/
"BL" <blan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:A_edneoQHu3...@comcast.com...
Free Citizen
it, there will always be the 'traditional pen collector'. Meaning, these
collectors accumulate specimens same as a numismatist would for old money
and medals. Most do it to 'amuse' themselves as they derive great enjoyment
out of it. Sharing with like minded friends about the historical value of
their collection and so forth. A small number do this professionally.
Acquiring to sell to enthusiasts. Many of this later group do it as a labour
of love and most take the trouble to acquire the skill to service these pens
even. However, there are also the profiteer that are not collectors
themselves. These should be avoided. A person who have no love for the hobby
can't possibly care well for the pen. For me, I am a user and I do not think
I will ever be a collector. Although I have just embarked on the route to
acquire old pens. I now have about 30 to 40 modern pens but I don't consider
them to be my collection. Since I use all of them and some of them have been
out of production for many years. To me, a pen is meant to be used. It is so
pitiful when they aren't. I guess the Toy Story 2 bug caught me :)
--
Best regards,
Free Citizen
http://www.freewebs.com/fpnet/
"PENDEMONIUM" <s...@pendemonium.com> wrote in message
news:4146F028...@pendemonium.com...
Tim McNamara
definition for the purposes of conversation. Maybe that's just as
well. Personally, I get along better with light hearted collectors of
any objet d'homage.
Rob Astyk
Sam Fiorella's perspective was very valuable. I'd like to speak to
both topics in this thread.
When I started collecting fountain pens a little more than 25 years
ago, I repaired every pen I owned except those that required lathes
and exotic tools (e.g. Sheaffer and Eversharp plunger fillers, Post
Pens, and all safeties). I did then and still do consider all of my
pens "users" whether they come in the box with price stickers or not.
Pens were made for writing. To see one lying unused is, to me, a kind
of crime against nature. :-)
Some of my pens still are non-functioning. I've never used a Moore's
Non-Leakable as anything other than a dip pen and I still have trouble
considering any plunger filled Sheaffer a "good buy" if it costs more
than $5.00, but I have many of them nonetheless. So the short answer
is that I do collect non-functioning pens in the hope of having them
back in working order one day.
As for who is a "serious" collector and who isn't...well, I think that
a truly serious collector is definitely in need of medication and
restraints. :-) Collecting ANYTHING is a pretty absurd passtime. That
striving for order and control in a chaotic world is at once
understandable and silly. The obsession in volved in getting one of
every color of Sheaffer Balance or Parker 51 is definitely hilarious.
Every collector, myself included is simply a loony rearranging deck
chairs on the Titanic. If a collector is so serious that he can't step
back and see the absurdities in all of this endeavor, then he's really
close to being a danger to himself and others. :-)
I will sit down and examine imprints with a magnifier for hours or
read pen literature rather than a good novel. I have
I-don't-know-how-many Red Parker Duofold Seniors from the 1920's
because there's something - maybe just the die for the barrel imprint
or the way the tails in the Lucky Curve banner curl - something
different about every one. It's absurd, but that's what we do when we
collect.
I haven't ever paid more than $1,000. for a pen, but I've paid $800.
for a pen case, a 2-dozen, countertop pen case to put pens in. And I'd
happily have paid all the money recently tossed to the seller of that
A.A. Waterman Snake pen on Ebay if I could afford to toss that kind of
money around. But I don't think that there's anything "serious" at all
about collecting. It's all crazy and that's the way I want to be. :-)
And as for KCat and her 18 pens...what's the matter with her? She
sounds sane! Heavens! We can't have that! ONLY 18 pens, indeed! The
woman must be stopped before she infects us all! 8-D
Take care,
Rob Astyk
BL
> <>
> ... I think that a truly serious collector is
> definitely in need of medication and restraints.
> :-) ... I will sit down and examine imprints with
> a magnifier for hours or read pen literature rather
> than a good novel. I have I-don't-know-how-many Red
> Parker Duofold Seniors from the 1920's because
> there's something - maybe just the die for the
> barrel imprint or the way the tails in the Lucky
> Curve banner curl - something different about every
> one. It's absurd, but that's what we do when we
> collect....
Now that Rob has explained some of the kinds of things serious
collectors do, next time you hear someone mention "serious collector,"
perhaps you'll chuckle instead of taking offense. The word does have
connotations, and they're rip-roariously funny. -- Bernadette
KCat
> > it doesn't matter whether they should have or
> > shouldn't.
>
> I think this is the point at which our positions begin t odiverge.
so basically you're saying that as long as no one *intends* something bad by
the words they say, no one is allowed to be offended? Or at least they're
not allowed to express that they are offended. That would be nice if the
world was that way. But we're human (well, at least I am!) and guess, what,
humans are not always rational in their responses.
> "Serious collector" captures the meaning in a parsimonious way... Can't
> imagine any other term one can use to describe these folks that couldn't
> be misconstrued in some way. Suffice it to say (?) that the term
> "serious collector" is widely used and accepted to connote a level of
> expertise that distinguishes him/her from most collectors. Is that ok,
> or is it still offensive?
we've gotten off track. The overall tone of the post gave an impression of
elitism to some people. Simple as that. the fact that you and I are
dissecting the concept of "serious collector" is a signficant departure. I
agree, I don't think that there are any words you can use that might not
cause some to feel either offended or brushed aside. Though "high-stakes"
might be slightly better. After all, QH specifically mentioned the
"thousands-of-dollars range."
There is a similar reaction among non-FP people and FP people. In fact, we
had this discussion (albeit much more friendly) on RS recently. I've had
family and friends who treated my enjoyment of my pens with disdain and even
disgust. They can't fathom why I would spend $30 on a pen! it's *just* a
pen. And heaven forbid they find out that for one of my pens I actually
paid more than $100. I think the reaction of the "casual user" (still not
accurate of course) to the "serious collector" is a similar feeling. A
sense that because we don't spend 1000s of dollars our intent is not serious
and our property not valuable. Or that because we use our pens, we have
devalued them. I'll admit, I don't understand spending $1000s of dollars on
a pen. But that applies to me only. *I* could not do it.
how often have people on pen groups made fun of those who buy the rollerball
and BP pens that cost hundreds of dollars (perhaps 1000s)? Many times. It's
human nature to create cliques and it's human nature to be disdainful of
such cliques. When a topic like this comes up, someone's gonna get upset.
I wish I could make it clear that I am not myself really offended by any of
this. I said I "take issue with" the terminology in QH's post. Only
because I knew it would be divisive. But avoiding such is almost
impossible in any part of life today. And of course, in saying as much, I
made it more divisive. :P I didn't explain that so it appeared that I
personally was upset by the post. I wasn't. I still am not. I merely said
"i take issue with this terminology and i don't understand the mind set."
Again, don't ask me to understand that mindset. I don't understand yours in
everything. You don't understand mine. Until we can get into each other's
heads (a la "The Cell"?) we are never going to. It's okay. I don't have to
understand why the serious or high-stakes collector behaves how they do. nor
do I have to agree with it. That doesn't mean I think less of them because
of the way they collect. I do believe that probably most (but I've seen
cases of some) do not think less of me because I use my pens.
Lunch was boring by-the-by. dogs and beans and bread with butter. But! I
had a soft choc. chip cookie from Subway to top it off. :-)
I think my new sig line should read:
If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance...
KCat
news:P8L1d.1960$mb6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Many of my pens are left intentionally "non-functioning." Rubber sacs
> produce sulfer as they age ("out gassing") that discolors most plastics.
> When you get an example with pefect color, why would you want to ruin it?
I
> use "user grade" pens, and many that I "collect" are non-functioning.
>
>
> Dave
And if I were the sort to collect the perfect sample, I would do all I could
to preserve it. But essentially, I'm cheap and I like to make use of the
things cluttering up my house.
KCat
news:4f5bc031.04091...@posting.google.com...
> Hi, All,
>
> Pens were made for writing. To see one lying unused is, to me, a kind
> of crime against nature. :-)
:-) I hate to look at my pen case and see a pen that hasn't been inked in a
long time. I have an MB 146 that is a good pen but I just never ink it and
I feel guilty about that. It feels like such a waste. I would avoid buying
any pen that I know I would not use. That means not only is my budget for
pens in good shape, but I don't have to torture myself with "to ink or not
to ink."
> Some of my pens still are non-functioning. I've never used a Moore's
> Non-Leakable as anything other than a dip pen
well, it is functional as a dip pen then. :-)
> As for who is a "serious" collector and who isn't...well, I think that
> a truly serious collector is definitely in need of medication and
> restraints. :-) Collecting ANYTHING is a pretty absurd passtime.
indeed! I guess that's why I have less than 20 FPs. And even that amount
seems excessive to me. I am, therefore, not a collector of any sort. I like
the term enthusiast.
> That
> striving for order and control in a chaotic world is at once
> understandable and silly. The obsession in volved in getting one of
> every color of Sheaffer Balance or Parker 51 is definitely hilarious.
My daughter bought every beanie baby. actually, my mom bought them for her
granddaughters, her other daughter and herself. So whenever a new one came
out, she bought four of 'em. I expressed my distaste for such a thing early
and have only been saddled with about a dozen cutesy fluffy animals. But it
made her happy.
> And as for KCat and her 18 pens...what's the matter with her? She
> sounds sane! Heavens! We can't have that! ONLY 18 pens, indeed! The
> woman must be stopped before she infects us all! 8-D
If I were sane I would never have entered this discussion! I sometimes
wonder, if I had the $$ would I buy a pen that was $300 or more? Would I
buy every Pelikan I could get my hands on? I was poor for a long time.
And I mean *poor*. Being poor sort of trains you to be "sane" with your
obsessions. to an extent. I do have too many stacks of paper (I love
paper) and too many bottles of ink (though I'm down to about 35 now I
think - not much compared to some others.) My "pen nook" is crowded and
disorganized despite having only 18 pens. I haven't even topped the $130
mark on my pen purchases. But the sense of extravagance lingers so I
suspect that at most I will someday own 30 nice pens. "Nice" translates to
"greater than $50 per." As I said, I can't stand to look at pens not being
used regularly and there is no way that even a verbose writer such as myself
can utilize that many pens in a day or week. I think I can rotate them in a
month. I'm still trying.
Of course, i didn't include the dozen Hero, Reflex, Futures and such in my
count. But that still puts me well under "collector" definition I think.
I imagine you saw the incredible pen cabinet posted on Pentrace. I can't
recall the # of pens it holds. 2500? Beautiful work and amazing (for me) to
imagine a collection of that magnitude.
best,
kcat the pen deficient
BL
> ... so basically you're saying that as long as no
> one *intends* something bad by the words they say,
Not at all... Just that it's a shame that anyone would feel bad about
something so silly (and, no, I'm not poo-pooing your feelings or
anything else). Each of us is the captain of our own ship, and we're
entitled to feel whatever we choose to feel. All I was doing was trying
to put a different slant on the term so folks wouldn't reflexively get
their shorts in a knot over it. BTW, I am not a serious collector but
aspire to be one which is sick enough, and I have never poo-pooed those
whose interests in pens are different than my own. I know a lot of
serious collectors and most are delightful (albeit strange) characters.
Are there some "serious collectors" who poo-poo us mere users and
aspiring pen geeks? Sure, but it doesn't bother me... In fact, I think
it's comical as hell. If you want to be offended by it... go ahead.
BTW, your lunch sounds muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better than mine... t.v.
dinner. Yuck. -- Bernadette
KCat
"Free Citizen" <limt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41479c0c$1...@news.tm.net.my...
> Whoa, time-out, time-out. Have a kit-kat? :)
>
attributed to the two very opinionated people involved in this particular
sub-thread. :-) Some of it can be attributed to me being hungry and
hormonal.
oh Lord... now I've gone and done it. I've admitted that a female can be
influenced by estrogen and progesterone. And chocolate. I felt much better
after my choc. chip cookie. :)
KCat
> KCat wrote:
> > ... so basically you're saying that as long as no
> > one *intends* something bad by the words they say,
> > no one is allowed to be offended? ...
>
> Not at all... Just that it's a shame that anyone would feel bad about
> something so silly (and, no, I'm not poo-pooing your feelings or
> anything else).
okay - to that I will definitely agree. we all have triggers. I got
triggered by a discussion on another board the other day. A discussion that
otherwise was humorous and pleasant but it struck a big, nasty, chord from
my past. so it goes.
> BTW, your lunch sounds muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better than mine... t.v.
> dinner. Yuck. -- Bernadette
Yeah. I'll pass on the t.v. dinner. My hubby eats those things a lot. Low
carb, low cal. OTOH, he's the healthy one in the family. When I had a life
(read: worked full-time in the real world) I ate such things regularly and
happily.
kcat
kg
"KCat" <kca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> I sometimes envy folks who can do that. My daughter found a snorkel for
$6
> and passed it on to me as a gift. The restoration was interesting to say
the
> least. But it is a fully functional and cool little pen. I don't use it
a
> lot but I'm loathe to get rid of it. OTOH, I'm also glad that this
> particular bug hasn't bitten too hard or I might very well be at odds with
> my hubby and my bank. :-) Fortunately, the good antique stores and
auctions
> are too far away.
I think I remember when you were doing that snork restoration; several
questions answers on the board. They can be a lot of fun to restore or a
genuine pain, usually depending on how stuck in the tube is the old sac.
I'm a bit amazed at the engineering and complexity of this pen relative to
the touchdown and how far pen co's went to build a better mouse trap.
kg
KCat
news:414893ee$1...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> questions answers on the board.
yup. it was fun. The hardest part was being able to visualize the
mechanism because I could not get the end cap off to save my life. Without
being able to fully disassemble the pen, all the pictures and descriptions
in the world weren't helping me. But... once that was free it all made
sense. The sac on mine was solid and had to be cracked by tapping on it
through one of the holes in the sac protector. At least it wasn't gooey.
> They can be a lot of fun to restore or a
> genuine pain, usually depending on how stuck in the tube is the old sac.
> I'm a bit amazed at the engineering and complexity of this pen relative to
> the touchdown and how far pen co's went to build a better mouse trap.
another forum member mentioned wishing the snorkel was being made
still/again. I think they're very interesting pens and I like the idea of
being able to dip without dunking. But that complexity and sensitivity to
leaks probably doesn't look like fun for a pen manufacturer to have to
support.
Free Citizen
bring back the Snork. The Snork was introduced at a time when slim pens were
in trend. Hence, the constrain the complex mechanism had to be housed in.
This gave rise to leak prone areas. However, today, pen users prefer some
girth size for comfortable writing. The new Snork will have the advantage of
more space to house its mechanism and packing seals and will benefit from
today's machining and material technology. It will be a better Snork for
sure. And you don't need a tissue :)
"KCat" <kca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Mz12d.1969$pQ3...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.com...
[snip]
Jeff Miars
Free Citizen wrote:
> On the contrary, I believe it would be a run away success if Sheaffer does
> bring back the Snork. The Snork was introduced at a time when slim pens were
> in trend. Hence, the constrain the complex mechanism had to be housed in.
> This gave rise to leak prone areas. However, today, pen users prefer some
> girth size for comfortable writing. The new Snork will have the advantage of
> more space to house its mechanism and packing seals and will benefit from
> today's machining and material technology. It will be a better Snork for
> sure. And you don't need a tissue :)
However, BIC has announced that Sheaffer will close in the near future.
What are the chances they might revive the Snork under these
circumstances?
Free Citizen
"Jeff Miars" <jmi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5ge2d.1725$0i5...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> However, BIC has announced that Sheaffer will close in the near future.
> What are the chances they might revive the Snork under these
> circumstances?
>
To the best of my knowledge, only the Sheaffer plant at Fort Madison will be
closed. Sheaffer may continue to operate from overseas. They have recently
launched some new models and have a new website. But reintroducing the Snork
may required more substantial investment than what they are introducing now.
As all the production tools for the Snork may no longer be available. At the
current state of affairs, it seem unlikely they will do so but you never
know. The Snork may be the needed boost Sheaffer needs to turn itself
around. BTW, I didn't mention that Sheaffer did make Snorkels in larger
models in the form of PFM. It had a short production run. But this are very
large girth pens that may not be suitable for some people. I find their
current Legacy 2 model unwieldy to use. Perhaps a Snorkel in the form of a
Balance would be nice :)
KCat
> On the contrary, I believe it would be a run away success if Sheaffer does
> bring back the Snork. The Snork was introduced at a time when slim pens
were
I hadn't thought about it from that POV. But i still wonder how many folks
would buy them and muck them up quickly.
KCat
be
> closed. Sheaffer may continue to operate from overseas. They have recently
> launched some new models and have a new website. But reintroducing the
Snork
> may required more substantial investment than what they are introducing
now.
the other issue is - will they make the same move that Parker made when they
made the 51 SE? Would the snorkel cost about $400?
A redesigned snork-like pen might actually sell well. A filler that doesn't
force one to wipe nib and section would be appealing to me if it was a)
affordable (less than $100) and b) reliable. Aesthetically appealing and a
nice nib of course. :P
kg
> bring back the Snork. The Snork was introduced at a time when slim pens
were
> in trend. Hence, the constrain the complex mechanism had to be housed in.
> This gave rise to leak prone areas. However, today, pen users prefer some
> girth size for comfortable writing. The new Snork will have the advantage
of
> more space to house its mechanism and packing seals and will benefit from
> today's machining and material technology. It will be a better Snork for
> sure. And you don't need a tissue :)
> --
>
Well, it would be a cool deal if Sheaffer decided to do it, but I seriously
doubt that will happen. The most complex filler systems we see being revived
today - excluding the piston fillers that have been in continual
production - are the various lever and button fillers from manufactures such
as Conway Stewart. With their problems with the Churchill leverfiller, I
doubt they are exited about more complex systems.
As for the larger size snorks, such as the PFM series, being at an advantage
for better seals, I don't know about that. One viewpoint would be that
bigger means more surface area for the rubber parts to seal; that's a
potential problem. The larger sac size would be nice. I have only one PFM
and it's a wonderful pen. In fact, I didn't have to replace any of the
rubber parts in the pen and that's the only snork where that's ever happened
and it did not appear as if it had seen much restoration. It is a great
writer and the size is not a problem in terms of writing comfort, it is very
well balanced.
I would suspect that a reintroduced snorkel would be quite expensive as
there is a lot of machine work involved in the parts and the assembly costs
would be significant. Plus, given the fact you can't just run down to the
corner jewelry store for a quick repair, I doubt Sheaffer wants to take on
the repair issues with a pen of this complexity. Relative to a snork, it's
pretty hard to mess up a cart. filler.
Having said all that, there might be a pretty good youth market as a
squirting device!
kg
Free Citizen
[snip]
>
> the other issue is - will they make the same move that Parker made when
> they
> made the 51 SE? Would the snorkel cost about $400?
>
> A redesigned snork-like pen might actually sell well. A filler that
> doesn't
> force one to wipe nib and section would be appealing to me if it was a)
> affordable (less than $100) and b) reliable. Aesthetically appealing and
> a
> nice nib of course. :P
>
>
Well, I think the 51SE is made and marketed as a high end pen. That is why
it cost so much. But what Sheaffer needs to do is mass produce the Snorkel
like they do with the Prelude. Their mainstay. Having economy of scale
always helps to bring costs down. I am looking at a price range of $100 or
less. But of course if you want it in celluloid and gold cap. It will
understandably cost more.
Free Citizen
>
[snip]
>
> Well, it would be a cool deal if Sheaffer decided to do it, but I
> seriously
> doubt that will happen. The most complex filler systems we see being
> revived
> today - excluding the piston fillers that have been in continual
> production - are the various lever and button fillers from manufactures
> such
> as Conway Stewart. With their problems with the Churchill leverfiller, I
> doubt they are exited about more complex systems.
This is true, the Snorkel is indeed the most complicated pen ever
manufactured but it was also very reliable. And they made that almost 5
decades ago. With today's machine tools and tighter tolerance that can be
achieved through them, it should not be a problem to duplicate that
reliability.
> As for the larger size snorks, such as the PFM series, being at an
> advantage
> for better seals, I don't know about that. One viewpoint would be that
> bigger means more surface area for the rubber parts to seal; that's a
> potential problem. The larger sac size would be nice. I have only one
> PFM
> and it's a wonderful pen. In fact, I didn't have to replace any of the
> rubber parts in the pen and that's the only snork where that's ever
> happened
> and it did not appear as if it had seen much restoration. It is a great
> writer and the size is not a problem in terms of writing comfort, it is
> very
> well balanced.
I think the reverse is true. Having a complicated mechanism in a slim pen is
akin to miniaturization. Fine components tend to give rise to reliability
problems. With bigger housing, the mechanism would be more robust. I have
not held a PFM but a Legacy. Yes, it is well balanced but I have small hands
and I tend to hold my pens quite high. That is, far away from the nib. With
large girth pens, this is a problem for me. The Balance is just right. A
Snorkel Balance would be my dream pen :)
> I would suspect that a reintroduced snorkel would be quite expensive as
> there is a lot of machine work involved in the parts and the assembly
> costs
> would be significant. Plus, given the fact you can't just run down to the
> corner jewelry store for a quick repair, I doubt Sheaffer wants to take on
> the repair issues with a pen of this complexity. Relative to a snork,
> it's
> pretty hard to mess up a cart. filler.
If you were to say this 50 years ago, I have to agree. But today we have CNC
machine tools that can machine parts and spit them out at rates of hundreds
per minute. Manufacturing the parts will not be a problem It will even be
cheaper if it is done in China. And to minimise the need to repair, the
mechanism can be redesigned to make it modular. Meaning, if a part becomes
non functional, it will be easily taken apart. A new part fitted in and the
defective one is recycled. If you prefer a cart filler, I don't see why a
Snorkel cart filler cannot be made.
> Having said all that, there might be a pretty good youth market as a
> squirting device!
>
> kg
>
Ah, I read somewhere that the Snorks were banned from schools because of
this capability. And with the Noodler permanent colours, it could become an
even more potent weapon.
--
Best regards,
Free Citizen
http://pagesperso.laposte.net/fpnet
Garglemonster
>>>>> <limt...@hotmail.com> said:
>> However, BIC has announced that Sheaffer will close in the near
>> future. What are the chances they might revive the Snork under
>> these circumstances?
Free> But reintroducing the Snork may required more substantial
Free> investment than what they are introducing now. As all the
Free> production tools for the Snork may no longer be
Free> available.
i think that mass producing something like the snorkel may be beyond
the capabilities of present day u.s. manufacturing. (and i mean mass
production, not boutique, luxury goods production) american companies
can make microchips, but that doesn't translate into capabilities in
other sectors of manufacturing. given that something like that would
have to be done in china, i suppose it's just as well that the big
u.s. pen makers have become branding houses. what a waste.
and what would they do with all those snorkels anyway?
I'm having a tax-deductible experience! I need an energy crunch!!
Curtis L. Russell
<gargle...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>i think that mass producing something like the snorkel may be beyond
>the capabilities of present day u.s. manufacturing. (and i mean mass
>production, not boutique, luxury goods production) american companies
>can make microchips, but that doesn't translate into capabilities in
>other sectors of manufacturing.
I'm not sure that there is anything the U.S. is incapable of producing
today. There are plenty of qualified people and manufacturing
capacity. Whether or not it is cost effective to do so is another
issue. The skill set to make a Boeing 727 pretty much includes
everything.
I doubt there is a pen market to support the effort, whether or not it
is manufactered overseas or in the U.S. You'd could a) make a simpler
pen of good quality, b) make the snorkle and charge the increment in
set-up and manufacturing costs and hope that there are enough people
still writing with pens that would know and be interested, or c) you
could sell it for the same price as other equal quality pens and not
make as much per pen.
I'm betting on a).
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Dave J
"normal" impulse, and is best not taken too seriously (it's a hobby for
God's sake, so "serious collector" is the archetype for oxymoron). I will
part ways with you about the desire to get an example of every style in a
particular line - I'm a Vac man (I'll happily grant that only anal retentive
compulsive types collect Vacs just for the reason that there is no limit to
the variations to collect and arcana to master).
I'd never presume to tell others what to collect, nor give much of a darn
what they thought about what I choose to collect. After all, debates
between collectors on such things are as productive as taking exception at
someone's favorite color.
"Rob Astyk" <roba...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:4f5bc031.04091...@posting.google.com...
>
Tim McNamara
> A Snorkel Balance would be my dream pen
Then you're in luck. The Snorkel was arguably the last pen in the
Balance family. :-D
Free Citizen
"Curtis L. Russell" <cur...@the-md-russells.org> wrote in message
news:064mk0hljtroe28i0...@4ax.com...
Ha! This is where you all may be wrong. I do not believe the US has lost its
traditional manufacturing capabilities. If it did, it will no longer be
manufacturing automobiles in America. Machine tool technology has come a
long way since the Snorkel was first introduced into the market. With
today's CNC machines, the cost of machining per part have dropped many fold
due to high efficiency. Yes, some retooling cost may be required if Sheaffer
were to re-introduce this model. But then, BIC is shutting down the Fort
Madison operation. Yet it could still be done. Parts can be outsourced from
contract manufacturers. That is how it is done in the Electronic industry.
You only have to assemble them yourself. Meaning, whatever is left of
Sheaffer USA, will just be a 'screw driver' workshop. Or a more attractive
proposition is to have this manual work done in China. Super cheap. Heck,
Sheaffer can even outsource in China itself although QC will be moot.
Secondly, will there be a market for this kind of pen? Well, I would say
this will not be competing with style. It will be a workhorse. For what is
left of this market, I say there is potential. Right now, I use a syringe to
recycle my ink cartridges. That protruding tube of the Snorkel, will be no
different from my syringe. From what I gathered from other forums, the
practice of recycling ink cartridges with a syringe seems to be the norm.
But the Snorkel will have one advantage over this. I still have to clean my
syringe after use. I won't have to with a Snorkel ;-)
--
Best regards,
Free Citizen
http://pagesperso.laposte.net/fpnet
Free Citizen
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:m21xh0a...@Stella-Blue.local...
What? I didn't know there was a Balance Snorkel. Do you have one?
Dave
> Ha! This is where you all may be wrong. I do not believe the US has lost its
> traditional manufacturing capabilities.
I don't think anyone wanted to argue that the US had lost any capabilities.
However, anyone who sets up to manufacture a new kind of pen (I know it's
been made before, so it isn't technically "new", but you know what I mean)
is going to have to make money doing it. That means keeping costs down, and
it means selling a lot of pens.
If the money's not important, then why don't you just pay for the factory
and tooling yourself? (grin)
David
Free Citizen
"Dave" <dave...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:BD71081D.9A1D%dave...@gmx.net...
Hi David,
I think you may have missed my point. Sheaffer does not have to invest in
new tooling. Machine tools are expensive. One CNC machine today will buy you
a nice house. It can outsource from the numerous contract manufacturers that
have mushroom to supply parts to the electronic industry. That is the only
economically viable option if you were to re-introduce a model like the
Snorkel.
Dave
> I think you may have missed my point. Sheaffer does not have to invest in
> new tooling. Machine tools are expensive. One CNC machine today will buy you
> a nice house. It can outsource from the numerous contract manufacturers that
> have mushroom to supply parts to the electronic industry. That is the only
> economically viable option if you were to re-introduce a model like the
> Snorkel.
If it truly is economically viable, and can truly be done through
outsourcing, (Including nibs? Including people who know how to grind a nib
properly?) then it sounds as if there's a gold mine waiting for you to tap!
Go for it, and I hope you get rich!
David
Of course that was partly a joke, but if you do pursue it then I honestly do
hope you do well. I'd buy one from you, as long as it was equal to the
quality of the old ones and sold for $100 or less.
One of the things Frank Dubiel complained about (he was of course always
complaining about something, but oh well...) was that all the knowledgeable
craftsmen who used to work at Sheaffer had either retired or died, and that
no one who worked there was capable of replacing them. The know-how is
apparently not lurking in the wings ready to return.
Free Citizen
[snip]
>
> David
>
> Of course that was partly a joke, but if you do pursue it then I honestly
> do
> hope you do well. I'd buy one from you, as long as it was equal to the
> quality of the old ones and sold for $100 or less.
>
> One of the things Frank Dubiel complained about (he was of course always
> complaining about something, but oh well...) was that all the
> knowledgeable
> craftsmen who used to work at Sheaffer had either retired or died, and
> that
> no one who worked there was capable of replacing them. The know-how is
> apparently not lurking in the wings ready to return.
>
Ah David, yes, some good people are irreplaceable but no one is
indispensable. From an engineering point of view, Sheaffer do not need these
craftsmen to revive the pen. Some genius designed that pen and the work is
done. Lets assume that the engineering plans for the design is lost. There
are still a lot of Snorkels lying around in good condition. All these can be
Reverse Engineered. It only takes a Mechanical Engineer to figure it out.
How it works and how to manufacture it. And even how it could be improved.
Maybe we could even see a Piston Snorkel. I am well versed in Pro-Engineer
software and I now use Unigraphics Solid Edge 3-D modelling software at
work. Give me a Snork and I will Reverse Engineer it for you. Once I have
the digital model done, I can generate manufacturing schematics for every
single part. I am not joking, it can be done. Why Sheaffer has not done so
is beyond me. They have brought back the Balance and the PFM in the form of
Legacy 2 but not the Snorkel. Maybe they were waiting for the right time.
When the market will once again be receptive to such a product. But it is
too late. BIC is shutting down Sheaffer USA altogether.
Tim McNamara
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:m21xh0a...@Stella-Blue.local...
>> "Free Citizen" <limt...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> A Snorkel Balance would be my dream pen
>>
>> Then you're in luck. The Snorkel was arguably the last pen in the
>> Balance family. :-D
>
> What? I didn't know there was a Balance Snorkel. Do you have one?
It's an issue of form factor. Set any TM Snorkel next to a Balance,
and the family relationship is obvious. Balance with open nib ->
Balance with Triumph nib -> Touchdown with either nib -> Snorkel with
either nib. The introduction of the PFM was the step away from the
Balance form factor.
Tim McNamara
> Ah David, yes, some good people are irreplaceable but no one is
> indispensable. From an engineering point of view, Sheaffer do not
> need these craftsmen to revive the pen. Some genius designed that
> pen and the work is done. Lets assume that the engineering plans for
> the design is lost. There are still a lot of Snorkels lying around
> in good condition. All these can be Reverse Engineered. It only
> takes a Mechanical Engineer to figure it out. How it works and how
> to manufacture it. And even how it could be improved. Maybe we
> could even see a Piston Snorkel. I am well versed in Pro-Engineer
> software and I now use Unigraphics Solid Edge 3-D modelling software
> at work. Give me a Snork and I will Reverse Engineer it for
> you. Once I have the digital model done, I can generate
> manufacturing schematics for every single part. I am not joking, it
> can be done.
It can be done, but would it be profitable? My othe rhobby is
bicycling, which has been endowed with dozens of CNC makers of parts.
Most of those have fallen by the wayside because production is much
slower than the more traditional cold forging method, and part
failures were much higher with CNC'd parts because of metallurgical
issues (grain structure in cold forged versus machined components).
> Why Sheaffer has not done so is beyond me. They have brought back
> the Balance and the PFM in the form of Legacy 2 but not the
> Snorkel. Maybe they were waiting for the right time. When the
> market will once again be receptive to such a product. But it is too
> late. BIC is shutting down Sheaffer USA altogether.
The cost of producing a Snorkel would be much higher than the cost of
producing the replica Balances. When Parker created the reissue 51s,
they were superficially similar but vastly different from a design
perspective, because it was not cost-effective to reproduce the
original 51. The Snorkel would be worse yet in this regard. Indeed,
if it was profitable then some independent person with access to a
milling machine would be doing it already.
Patrick Lamb
<limt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ha! This is where you all may be wrong. I do not believe the US has lost its
>traditional manufacturing capabilities. If it did, it will no longer be
>manufacturing automobiles in America. Machine tool technology has come a
>long way since the Snorkel was first introduced into the market. With
>today's CNC machines, the cost of machining per part have dropped many fold
>due to high efficiency. Yes, some retooling cost may be required if Sheaffer
>were to re-introduce this model. But then, BIC is shutting down the Fort
>Madison operation. Yet it could still be done. Parts can be outsourced from
>contract manufacturers. That is how it is done in the Electronic industry.
>You only have to assemble them yourself. Meaning, whatever is left of
>Sheaffer USA, will just be a 'screw driver' workshop. Or a more attractive
>proposition is to have this manual work done in China. Super cheap. Heck,
>Sheaffer can even outsource in China itself although QC will be moot.
I'm not sure the CNC slant is relevant. CNC is fine for limited
numbers of expensive parts, but my impression is it's not the
preferred way to manufacture large numbers of inexpensive parts. And
the latter is how the electronics industry you reference makes money.
Besides which, you have to remember what the competition is. If
you're trying to sell a workhorse pen, the real competition in the
marketplace is 12 ballpoints for $1, or a dozen rollerballs for $3.
Before I rediscovered fountain pens, I was using a Parker Jotter
ballpoint, and catching flak for using a $4-5 pen. How much do you
want this new snorkel to cost?? I suspect you'd have a hard time
selling a million pens at $20 each -- and if you did, have you thought
the finances through to how you'd set up a factory and produce those
pens (factory, equipment, parts, and labor) for $20M?
I guess my bottom line is, bringing back the snorkel is probably
technically and technologically feasible, but I doubt it's financially
feasible.
Pity.
Pat
Email address works as is.
Curtis L. Russell
<limt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ha! This is where you all may be wrong. I do not believe the US has lost its
>traditional manufacturing capabilities.
Hardly my argument. The issue is whether or not it can be best made in
the U.S. I don't think that is the case nor do I think it is likely.
I do disagree as to the potential market. I think it is small and no
matter how you set up manufacturing, the snorkel is going to be more
expensive to make than its competitors. Not enough people will see the
benefits IMO and many of the current adherents may have trouble
purchasing a new one if it is more than the available working older
pens.
SMSmith007
>technically and technologically feasible, but I doubt it's financially
>feasible.
Vintage Snorkels in working condition are not in short supply. How many buyers
are there for a "New Snorkel" at say $100 a pop when you can buy a nice vintage
one with a 14kt nib for $30 or so?
Free Citizen
[snip]
>
> It can be done, but would it be profitable? My other hobby is
> bicycling, which has been endowed with dozens of CNC makers of parts.
> Most of those have fallen by the wayside because production is much
> slower than the more traditional cold forging method, and part
> failures were much higher with CNC'd parts because of metallurgical
> issues (grain structure in cold forged versus machined components).
>
I don't think a bicycle would serve as a good illustration for the
feasibility of manufacturing with CNC machines. Bicycles are mainly tubular
structure connected by welding. Only a small number of parts like the gear
sprockets have some machined parts. I would think a shaver would be a closer
example. But it isn't all CNC work. The pen body forexample if made from
polymers would injection moulded. You know how cheaply these things are
manufactured.
[snip]
>
> The cost of producing a Snorkel would be much higher than the cost of
> producing the replica Balances.
Agreed.
> When Parker created the reissue 51s,
> they were superficially similar but vastly different from a design
> perspective, because it was not cost-effective to reproduce the
> original 51. The Snorkel would be worse yet in this regard. Indeed,
> if it was profitable then some independent person with access to a
> milling machine would be doing it already.
Parker did what it had to do with the 51 SE because of pressure from the
board to produce something with high yield profit. So, something has to
give. But a Snorkel is a Snorkel. There isn't much option for compromises.
It must meet those design criteria in order to work. Whether it will be
profitable, that is a moot point. It all depends on the quantity to be
manufactured. When you see a $100 pen. Only a small percentage of it is
attributed to material and manufacturing cost. You will be surprised how
much hidden cost constitute the selling price of the pen. Distribution,
advertising, inventory, profit for agents and profit for retailers. If
marketed in the conventional way, the Snorkel doesn't stand a chance. But if
Sheaffer were to sell direct like Dell. That could be a different story.
Free Citizen
news:rktpk0d5pu1l69daj...@4ax.com...
>
[snip]
>
> I'm not sure the CNC slant is relevant. CNC is fine for limited
> numbers of expensive parts, but my impression is it's not the
> preferred way to manufacture large numbers of inexpensive parts. And
> the latter is how the electronics industry you reference makes money.
>
> Besides which, you have to remember what the competition is. If
> you're trying to sell a workhorse pen, the real competition in the
> marketplace is 12 ballpoints for $1, or a dozen rollerballs for $3.
> Before I rediscovered fountain pens, I was using a Parker Jotter
> ballpoint, and catching flak for using a $4-5 pen. How much do you
> want this new snorkel to cost?? I suspect you'd have a hard time
> selling a million pens at $20 each -- and if you did, have you thought
> the finances through to how you'd set up a factory and produce those
> pens (factory, equipment, parts, and labor) for $20M?
>
> I guess my bottom line is, bringing back the snorkel is probably
> technically and technologically feasible, but I doubt it's financially
> feasible.
>
> Pity.
>
> Pat
>
> Email address works as is.
It is not all CNC Pat, for the main parts it would be polymer and these
would be injection moulded parts. The cost for plastic injection moulded
parts are very low. As I have said, Sheaffer need not commit itself to
capital investment for this venture. It can outsource. The only thing is
that it must produce in quantities in order to have economy of scale.
Free Citizen
"SMSmith007" <smsmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040919131401...@mb-m17.aol.com...
You are talking about pen enthusiast market. That is tiny. The likes of
Sheaffer cannot survive from this minuscule market. I am talking about
selling to the masses. Meaning, sell a Snorkel instead of a Prelude.
Free Citizen
>
[snip]
>
> Hardly my argument. The issue is whether or not it can be best made in
> the U.S. I don't think that is the case nor do I think it is likely.
>
> I do disagree as to the potential market. I think it is small and no
> matter how you set up manufacturing, the snorkel is going to be more
> expensive to make than its competitors. Not enough people will see the
> benefits IMO and many of the current adherents may have trouble
> purchasing a new one if it is more than the available working older
> pens.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
Here you too are envisioning a very small market of pen enthusiasts. How
many members does PCA have? 1800? Out of these 1800 or so, how many are fans
of Sheaffer? And out of these devotees of Sheaffer, how many would be
interested to buy a new Snorkel. It would hardly make up the number to
justify the re-introduction of the Snorkel. We can all yap to our hearts
content in this forum and any other forum there are in the www and the likes
of Sheaffer doesn't give a damn. We are an insignificant number of pen users
these big manufacturers are targeting. We have two, three generations who
have never seen a Snorkel. If it were to be introduced today and with some
advertising, it could be a hit. There seems to be a resurgence of interest
in fountain pen in the developed countries. This may be as good a time to
bring back the Snorkel.
Curtis L. Russell
<limt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I don't think a bicycle would serve as a good illustration for the
>feasibility of manufacturing with CNC machines. Bicycles are mainly tubular
>structure connected by welding. Only a small number of parts like the gear
>sprockets have some machined parts. I would think a shaver would be a closer
>example. But it isn't all CNC work. The pen body forexample if made from
>polymers would injection moulded. You know how cheaply these things are
>manufactured.
And I think you misunderstand what goes into a high quality bike.
While the tube set is important, it is in many ways the easiest from
the design and assembly point-of-view. The typical CNC parts are the
crank set and rear derailleur, with the main issues being with the
crank set. CNC simply has a record of failure and this is when done by
experts like the Cooks. And it makes no sense for true mass
production.
Tolerances at the machined surfaces are easily the equal of pens, if
not that of true high speed bearing surfaces. OTOH, CNC IMO makes more
sense in the case of a $ 500 - $ 700 crank assembly than a $ 100 - $
120 pen.
PENMART01
>
>It is not all CNC Pat, for the main parts it would be polymer and these
>would be injection moulded parts. The cost for plastic injection moulded
>parts are very low.
Wrong.
Todays plastic pen barrels and caps are not moulded (too much handling, and
requiring removal of more material than remains in the finished part), they are
made from tubular *extrusions*, probably lengths of 10'-12', finished by being
passed through banks of small manual bench-type turret lathes run by a small
cadre of minimum wage operaters and one set up/lead person, who all together
don't draw a salary approaching that of one CNC programmer. Internal plastic
parts are injection molded to completeness, requiring no secondary operations.
Metal trim part such as clips are formed by progressive stamping dies (probably
the costliest operation), most likely out-sourced... rings also from tubes,
produced by the same turret lathe operators when they're not doing barrels and
caps. Plastic barrel and cap polishing is performed by loading onto converers
and briefly 'dipping' into a solvent solution such as acetone and then air
dried by fans. Fountain pen production, especially these days, isn't anywhere
near the volume warranting automated production. Now if yoose wanna tawk BIC
Sticks, those are totally automated, produced entirely robotically, untouched
by human hands, made in the billions... but barrels and refill tubes also
EXTRUDED, not moulded... caps are moulded to completeness.
Btw, it's extremely rare for engineers to possess any practical experience
whatsoever... at best those theoretical types can come up with rough sketches,
which are then groomed by the real
workhorses of manufacturing, the toolroom personel. A manufacturing engineer
yoose definitely not.
---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````
Dave
"Free Citizen" <limt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You are talking about pen enthusiast market. That is tiny. The likes of
> Sheaffer cannot survive from this minuscule market. I am talking about
> selling to the masses. Meaning, sell a Snorkel instead of a Prelude.
Sheaffer Preludes do not sell to "the masses". Maybe to a bigger pen
enthusiast group, but still very small. "The masses" walk right past any
pen over 5 dollars, and consider the four-dollar one a luxury. Normal
pens are fifty cents or less. That's "the masses", so that would be the
marketing challenge.
Again, if you think this would be such a great investment, no one is
stopping you.
David
Free Citizen
>
[snip]
>
> And I think you misunderstand what goes into a high quality bike.
> While the tube set is important, it is in many ways the easiest from
> the design and assembly point-of-view. The typical CNC parts are the
> crank set and rear derailleur, with the main issues being with the
> crank set. CNC simply has a record of failure and this is when done by
> experts like the Cooks. And it makes no sense for true mass
> production.
>
> Tolerances at the machined surfaces are easily the equal of pens, if
> not that of true high speed bearing surfaces. OTOH, CNC IMO makes more
> sense in the case of a $ 500 - $ 700 crank assembly than a $ 100 - $
> 120 pen.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
I suppose you are into manufacturing these bicycles. Although I have a
pretty good idea what CNC machine tools are capable of, I have to admit that
I know nothing about manufacturing these high precision crank sets. I rest
my case.
Free Citizen
>
[snip]
>
> Sheaffer Preludes do not sell to "the masses". Maybe to a bigger pen
> enthusiast group, but still very small. "The masses" walk right past any
> pen over 5 dollars, and consider the four-dollar one a luxury. Normal
> pens are fifty cents or less. That's "the masses", so that would be the
> marketing challenge.
>
No, that is not the mass market I am referring to either. You are talking
about throw-aways or disposables. How much is a Varsity? It is quite clear
the fountain pen target market is at Fine Writing Instrument. Who would use
such instruments? Mostly lawyers, executives who require a 'decent' tool to
put their name on some important document. A fountain pen isn't used as a
daily workhorse. Those days are gone. But a market for fine writing still
exist.
> Again, if you think this would be such a great investment, no one is
> stopping you.
>
> David
I would if I am in a position to do so. Alas, it is not. That design Patent
No. XXXXXXXXXXX belongs to Sheaffer. I am merely stating my opinion why it
isn't so difficult to re-introduce the Snorkel and that it is viable
business option.
Free Citizen
"PENMART01" <penm...@aol.como> wrote in message
news:20040920090620...@mb-m02.aol.com...
>
[snip]
What is this 'BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN' thing and 'Move
UNITED NATIONS To Paris' business? I don't get it. I may not be a
manufacturing engineer but I know enough about manufacturing processes. Any
length of barrel or cap that has a constant non-varying cross-section is
best made from extrusion. But those that are varying or has tapering cannot
be made this way. They have to be moulded or as you say turned from solid
rods. I doubt the latter case would be the manufacturing method of choice
for volume production like a Cross Radiance for example. Or even a Parker
Frontier or a Sheaffer Javelin. Look closely at their barrels as I am
looking at both now and you can see the spot at the end of the barrel where
the injection is made. I do not have to be a plastic moulding specialist to
know that this is the most cost effective way to manufacture these part. Any
complex shape can be moulded and to eject the finished product from the
mould isn't a very difficult process. Things like barrels and caps are spit
out by these machines at a rate you cannot imagine. Have you ever seen a
plastic injection moulding machine? Turning of pen parts from solid material
is the preserve of hand made pens. Such as the like of Nakaya and other
artisans of the west. These are one off items and no two are alike. They
cater to a different market. They are certainly not mainstream.
Free Citizen
"Fred" <fr...@savrola.org> wrote in message
news:a32vk0lb4mpu3ov2u...@4ax.com...
>
[snip]
>
> Patents expire within a couple of decades of issuance (20 years from
> filing date for patents granted today, in the US, IIRC). I'm sure
> there is no enforceable Snorkel patent remaining.
>
> --
> regards, Fred
>
> "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
Are expiring patents renewable?
KCat
"Free Citizen" <limt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:414f8...@news.tm.net.my...
>
FC,
Arguing with Penmart is pointless - my dog is brighter than Shel.
hell, she's brighter than me.
take care,
kcat
PENMART01
That's a compliment, dogs are often brighter than people, especially their
owners.
>hell, she's brighter than me.
>kcatwat
No great accomplishment... your dog's shit is brighter than you, is prettier,
smells better, and has more class.
Free Citizen
"KCat" <kca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:AJX3d.23316$MC2....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
>
[snip]
> FC,
>
> Arguing with Penmart is pointless - my dog is brighter than Shel.
>
> hell, she's brighter than me.
>
> take care,
> kcat
>
I get your point. Boy, what a waste of my time.
Free Citizen
>
[snip]
>
> No, not in the US. You are thinking copyrights I suspect. A
> copyright can be renewed.
>
> --
> regards, Fred
>
> "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
So, what do you think? Is the copyright of the Snorkel still held by
Sheaffer?
Free Citizen
>
[snip]
>
> The snorkel pen cannot be copyrighted. A copyright protects an
> original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention.
>
> --
> regards, Fred
>
> "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
You are right. You can't reproduce any Snorkel Pen designed made by
Sheaffer. But the patent to the mechanism itself has already lapse. Which
means, if any entrepreneur who want to market a new Snorkel will have to
start from scratch. Designing a workable pen is easy but to design a
beautiful pen that will sell itself is hard.
PENMART01
>original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention.
>
Nope. Copyrights protect original "expressions", including names, "Sheaffer"
and "Sheaffer Snorkel" certainly can be copyrighted.
PENMART01
>
>>(PENMART01) wrote:
>>
>>>Sumgai sed:
>>>The snorkel pen cannot be copyrighted. A copyright protects an
>>>original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention.
>>
>"Sheaffer"
>>and "Sheaffer Snorkel" certainly can be copyrighted.
>
>copyrights are not patents.
A Trademark is generally reserved for logos and things of that nature (symbols)
but could also apply to a word or phrase... there is absolutely no reason
whatsoever that "Snorkel" or "Sheaffer Snorkel" can't be Copyrighted AND
Trademarked.
PENMART01
> (PENMART01) wrote:
>>>Sumgai sed:
>>>
>>>Those terms would be trademarked, not copyrighted.
>>
>(symbols)
>>but could also apply to a word or phrase... there is absolutely no reason
>>whatsoever that "Snorkel" or "Sheaffer Snorkel" can't be Copyrighted AND
>>Trademarked.
>
>
>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm
Why wouldn't I agree, that site agrees with my post and vice versa. Freddy,
you need remedial reading, of that there is no doubt whatsoever... you also
need to learn how to correctly attribute Newsgroup posts, your Newbiness is no
excuse.
Tim McNamara
> "KCat" <kca...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:AJX3d.23316$MC2....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>
> [snip]
>
>> FC,
>>
>> Arguing with Penmart is pointless - my dog is brighter than Shel.
>>
>> hell, she's brighter than me.
>>
>> take care, kcat
>>
>
> I get your point. Boy, what a waste of my time.
Yes, he is. That's why killfiles exist.
Tim McNamara
> "Fred" <fr...@savrola.org> wrote in message
> news:eaa0l0dipb47fv4p8...@4ax.com...
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> No, not in the US. You are thinking copyrights I suspect. A
>> copyright can be renewed.
>>
>> -- regards, Fred
>>
>> "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
>
> So, what do you think? Is the copyright of the Snorkel still held by
> Sheaffer?
It would be a patent, not a copyright. They are governed under
different laws and have different legal and social consequences.
Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU project that made the free
GNU/Linux operating system possible, has some interesting and
controversial views:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html