I added some stuff about FPs and FP inks to Wikipedia
Juhapekka Tolvanen
Well... Here is Wikipedia's article about Fountain pens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_pen
I added those links pointing to articles about fountain pen
manufacturers and fountain pen inks. BTW does anybody know, if Dunhill
makes fountain pens, too?
Most links to fountain pen inks are non-functional. If you click those
red links, you get to editing pages of those non-existing pages.
Somebody has made an article about Parker Quink, already:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quink
I have edited it a little bit. But I started articles about Sheaffer
Skrip and Pelikan 4001:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheaffer_Skrip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelikan_4001
That's it! If you can add some information about those topics, feel free
to write it down there. I have mostly good at adding WWW-links, but
writing "real information" is harder for me.
Always remember: Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles, including you!
--
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen * http colon slash slash iki dot fi slash juhtolv
"Katkeemaan ei sitä mitenkään saa. Turhempaa ei oo olemassakaan. Huomaa vaan
kun joku sanoo jotain sellaista, mitä kuulla haluaa. Ei haittaa onko edes
tottakaan. Oikeuttaa kalleintansa tuhlaamaan." Apulanta
Nick Name
> Always remember: Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles, including you!
Really? I did not know that. How do they control accuracy? What
would stop some nutter from revising Thomas Jefferson's section to make
Jefferson sound like a fundamentalist, or putting in the revisionist's
opinion on Hitler that he was completely unaware of the Holocaust?
How does Wikipedia work? If anyone can edit it, then Wikipedia is not
a reliable research source.
Juhapekka Tolvanen
"Nick Name" <wynte...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Always remember: Anybody can edit Wikipedia articles, including you!
> Really? I did not know that. How do they control accuracy? What would
> stop some nutter from revising Thomas Jefferson's section to make
> Jefferson sound like a fundamentalist, or putting in the revisionist's
> opinion on Hitler that he was completely unaware of the Holocaust?
First who notice such vandalism can put any former revision of that
article back. All articles are versioned, so all revisions are always
available.
It is even possible to ban certain IP-addresses, if needed.
> How does Wikipedia work?
RTFM
> If anyone can edit it, then Wikipedia is not a reliable research
> source.
If enough people edit it and discuss about articles they are editing,
some kind of concensus is reached sooner or later. As you can see in
each article, there is also that tab called "discuss". That is the way
Wikipedia (or any other Wiki system) evolves.
mz
>
> How does Wikipedia work? If anyone can edit it, then Wikipedia is not
> a reliable research source.
>
Ahhh, a voice of reason that gets to the crux of the matter. As an
example of the inherent weaknesses of Wikipedia, and with absolutely
no disrespect intended, someone working on an ink article who
doesn't know Dunhill doesn't manufacture their own ink or whether
they make FPs is an excellent example of the problems with this
approach. Without peer review by "experts" (which I am not), there
are bound to be errors propagated and perpetrated throughout.
In my opinion, those attempting serious research should steer clear
of Wikipedia because of its weaknesses. Likewise, those willing to
submit the results of their serious research should steer clear
because others with less knowledge can and will make a shambles of
it. But these are just my thoughts. Take them for what they're worth.
Mark Z.
EvdL
<SNIP>
> In my opinion, those attempting serious research should steer clear of
> Wikipedia because of its weaknesses. Likewise, those willing to submit
> the results of their serious research should steer clear because others
> with less knowledge can and will make a shambles of it. But these are
> just my thoughts. Take them for what they're worth.
>
> Mark Z.
Yet most articles found in wikipedia are correct on the facts they
present. Several studies have been done on the "quality" of wikipedia
including someone deliberately adding errors just to see whether
people would notice. None of the studies that I'm aware of has shown
wikipedia to be significantly worse than other sources on the net.
(I still remember how one typo in an encyclopedia changed the B25
bombers that raided Tokyo in WW2 into B52's something that still
pops up in books, documentaries etc. Even saw a flamewar on the
subject a while ago...)
The idea behind wiki's is to have a community create a web of
information. Some can abuse their access to the information, but
with just a bit more sophistication people can change DNS records
such that a request for cnn is served from a basement somewhere.
Does this mean that you shouldn't trust any information on the net?
As for 'religious' wars about the facts in wiki articles, they happen.
Just as in real life people tend to see 'facts' differently, I have
followed some pages being editted back and forth over a few weeks
(really funny btw) This is not really different from what you may
find in books or even academic journals especially if you get your
information from secondary sources (e.g. newspapers.)
At least wiki's allow people to rectify any errors they find (true
or not) and let a community decide on the verity of the facts and
their presentation(!) So I would tell people to go ahead and use
it (in the knowledge that the information may be biased) and add
new items (knowing that other people may add their views.) There
is some safety in numbers here.
As for fountain pens, there should be enough expertise in this
group to at least weed out all the glaring mistakes (even if
some pencilhead or bic lover may rewrite it all later on ;-)
E.
Juhapekka Tolvanen
mz <mz@dislikes_spam_very_much.infomagic.net> writes:
> Without peer review by "experts" (which I am not), there are bound to
> be errors propagated and perpetrated throughout.
There is at least one solution for that: The more "experts" participate
editing of Wikipedia articles, the better.
> In my opinion, those attempting serious research should steer clear of
> Wikipedia because of its weaknesses. Likewise, those willing to submit
> the results of their serious research should steer clear because
> others with less knowledge can and will make a shambles of.
Yeah, right. Can you point same examples of such Wikipedia articles that
somebody with less knowledge has made shambles of? If not, then just
STFU.
> But these are just my thoughts. Take them for what they're worth.
I consider them expression of ignorance.
Nick Name
> I consider them expression of ignorance.
Well, that destroys your credibility. You might have argued the facts
involved, but chose to go ad hominem instead. I hope you are not a
representative "expert."
Examples of Wikipedia error: "It is speculated, that J. Herbin is
actual manufacturer of fountain pen inks of Omas." Wrong, and
speculation has no place in an encyclopedia.
Another whopper of an inaccuracy: "Fountain pens are widely regarded to
be the best tools for writing or drawing with ink on paper." No, the
ballpoint is widely regarded by the vast majority of the population as
the best tool for writing with ink on paper. The preference for the
fountain pen is highly limited and esoteric in comparison. Any attempt
to say the fountain pen is qualitatively better is strictly the
subjective opinion of fountain pen enthusiasts, and not an objective
fact.
Yet another: "Fountain pens from Aurora, Hero, Duke and Uranus accept
the same cartridges and converters that Parker uses and vice versa."
No, the Aurora cartridge is slightly different, and often has to be
forced a bit to fit a Parker, and vice versa. Furthermore, the Hero I
have takes international cartridges, not Parker.
The point MZ and I have been making stands. Wikipedia is structurally
prone to error due to the ready input of self-styled "experts" who are
anything but.
Juhapekka Tolvanen
"Nick Name" <wynte...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Examples of Wikipedia error: "It is speculated, that J. Herbin is
> actual manufacturer of fountain pen inks of Omas." Wrong, and
> speculation has no place in an encyclopedia.
Okay, I'll remove that. That was my addition.
> Another whopper of an inaccuracy: "Fountain pens are widely regarded
> to be the best tools for writing or drawing with ink on paper." No,
> the ballpoint is widely regarded by the vast majority of the
> population as the best tool for writing with ink on paper. The
> preference for the fountain pen is highly limited and esoteric in
> comparison. Any attempt to say the fountain pen is qualitatively
> better is strictly the subjective opinion of fountain pen enthusiasts,
> and not an objective fact.
Maybe that part of the article was originally written by somebody who is
a little bit too entusiatic about fountain pens. But so what? There are
other Wikipedians that can remove "subjective opinions" and other such
crap, if it ever slips in. So, there.
If it says "widely regarded" it does not mean same as "most (in the
sense of "over 50%") people think that". And BTW that paragraph
continues like this:
"However, they can be more expensive, harder to maintain, and more
fragile than a ballpoint pen. In addition, they cannot be used
with the various oil- and particle-based inks (such as India ink)
prized by artists, as can a dip pen, reed, or quill."
> Yet another: "Fountain pens from Aurora, Hero, Duke and Uranus accept
> the same cartridges and converters that Parker uses and vice versa."
> No, the Aurora cartridge is slightly different, and often has to be
> forced a bit to fit a Parker, and vice versa.
It may be too pedantic to mention that in that Wikipedia article.
> Furthermore, the Hero I have takes international cartridges, not
> Parker.
So, you have one fountain pen of Hero that takes international
cartridges. That does not mean all fountain pens of Hero take
international cartridges.
In fact, when I wrote about those cartridges, I asked before that from
hisnibs.com about cartridges that fountain pens they sell use. Exact
answer from Norman Haase was this: "Hero, Duke and Uranus (all from
China), use Parker-style in probably 95% of their models, but each brand
has a few that take international carts instead.". But I thought it
would be too pedantic to mention about those few exceptions.
> The point MZ and I have been making stands. Wikipedia is structurally
> prone to error due to the ready input of self-styled "experts" who are
> anything but.
Once again: If there are errors, even you can fix them. It is more
usefull, than whining about errors in newsgroups. And as I said, each
article has its own discussion page. It is right place for discussion
about that certain article.
Anyway, now I'll go and make those fixes. I guess you are not up to it.
Meanwhile you can read about errors of Encyclopedia Britannica!:
http://members.cox.net/kevin82/eberrors.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/lies_of_britannica.html
mz
<snip>
>
> Yeah, right. Can you point same examples of such Wikipedia articles that
> somebody with less knowledge has made shambles of? If not, then just
Here are a few more Nick Name didn't mention.
1.) The FP article states:
"At this time fountain pens were almost all filled by unscrewing a
portion of the hollow barrel or holder and inserting the ink by
means of an eyedropper. This was a slow and messy system.
Additionally, fountain pens tended to leak inside their caps and at
the joint where the barrel opened for filling. Now that the
materials problems had been overcome and the flow of ink while
writing had been regulated, the next problems to be solved were the
creation of a simple, convenient self-filler and the problem of
leakage."
I've read and re-read this section and the preceding paragraphs.
Exactly when the problems with ink flow were overcome eludes me, but
it must be sometime between 1850 and the 1920s according to the
article. The sources I'm familiar with place this in the 1930s.
2.) The first sentence in the Quink article states Quink is "also
known as Double Quink and Parker 51 Ink" Yet the latter are
completely separate products. All three would fit under an article
about Parker ink but not Quink.
3.) The Sheaffer Skrip article implies Skrip was always used as the
name for Sheaffer ink. In the recent past it was simply "Sheaffer Ink."
> STFU.
OOOO, such a clever rejoinder. Are you bucking for status as
Sheldon, Jr.?
Mark Z.
who refuses to participate in a pissing contest and is done with
this thread
Juhapekka Tolvanen
mz <mz@dislikes_spam_very_much.infomagic.net> writes:
> Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
> Here are a few more Nick Name didn't mention.
>
> 1.) The FP article states:
> I've read and re-read this section and the preceding paragraphs.
> Exactly when the problems with ink flow were overcome eludes me, but
> it must be sometime between 1850 and the 1920s according to the
> article. The sources I'm familiar with place this in the 1930s.
I can not write about those things. Any takers?
> 2.) The first sentence in the Quink article states Quink is "also
> known as Double Quink and Parker 51 Ink" Yet the latter are completely
> separate products. All three would fit under an article about Parker
> ink but not Quink.
Somebody should write article about those three inks of Parker or one
article about each ink. But I can't do that, because I don't know enough
about inks of Parker. Any takers?
> 3.) The Sheaffer Skrip article implies Skrip was always used as the
> name for Sheaffer ink. In the recent past it was simply "Sheaffer
> Ink."
Oh! As I said, that article was started by me, so I'll fix that.
BL
> <>
> 2.) The first sentence in the Quink article
> states Quink is "also known as Double Quink and
> Parker 51 Ink" Yet the latter are completely
> separate products. All three would fit under an
> article about Parker ink but not Quink.
Absolutely. I read that and was shocked at the inaccuracies. Parker 51
ink is an earlier name for Superchrome. It is NOT even close to Quink in
composition or safety for use in pens. Here are other quotes from the
Wikipedia entry:
"Quink was first marketed in 1931."
Well, at least they got that right.
"The resulting product was strongly alkaline and contained isopropyl
alcohol..."
Wrong!
"At that time, most pen barrels and caps were manufactured using
pyralin, and it was often damaged by the alcohol contained in Quink."
Wrong!
If you want to go totally ga-ga with inaccurate information, here's the
link to the Wikipedia Quink article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quink
For more trustworthy information about Quink (which was always just a
self-cleaning ink, not a high-velocity, alkali ink), see Zazove's and
Fultz's article:
http://www.pencollectors.com/pennant/fall00/shakehand.html
I have to go with Nick and mz on this one... Make sure you have your
skeptics hat on when you read Wikipedia. -- B
mz
<snip>
>
> Absolutely. I read that and was shocked at the inaccuracies. Parker 51
> ink is an earlier name for Superchrome. It is NOT even close to Quink in
> composition or safety for use in pens.
Hey B,
The Shepherds' book on the Parker 51 says Double Quink, released in
1939, was renamed as Parker 51 Ink when the 51 pen was released in
1941. They make no mention of a following name change from Parker 51
Ink to Superchrome. Since they had unrivaled access (in recent
times) to Parker archives and didn't mention a change, I suspect
Parker 51 Ink and Superchrome were different products. Do you have a
source for this change?
TIA,
Mark Z.
mz
<with snipping>
>
> mz <mz@dislikes_spam_very_much.infomagic.net> writes:
>
>>3.) The Sheaffer Skrip article implies Skrip was always used as the
>>name for Sheaffer ink. In the recent past it was simply "Sheaffer
>>Ink."
>
>
> Oh! As I said, that article was started by me, so I'll fix that.
>
Now the first two sentences read: "Sheaffer Skrip is a series of
fountain pen inks by Sheaffer. It was formerly known as just
'Sheaffer Ink'." In truth, the names went from Sheaffer Skrip to
Sheaffer Ink and back to Sheaffer Skrip. The article now implies
there was only one name change.
This is why B's advice to wear your skeptic's hat is well-founded.
But those who are less knowledgeable and looking for reliable
information have no way to judge the veracity of information.
Depending on when they visited your article, they would either think
only Sheaffer Skrip was used (original article) or it was Sheaffer
Ink before Sheaffer Skrip without knowing about the original
Sheaffer Skrip (article as it is now).
I'm really not trying to pick on you. This just happens to be a
subject for which it appears I have a little more information than
you, and I assure you it is very little more information. :0)
While the Wikipedia has a laudable goal, I don't use it because I
have no way to judge the information for subjects I know nothing
about. Depending on the day I visited, I could be led far astray by
erroneous information submitted by someone who was ill-informed or
injected personal preferences. For subjects I know something about,
there are better sources, IMO, with reliability and robustness I am
familiar with.
Mark Z.
so much for staying out of the thread ;0)
BL
> The Shepherds' book on the Parker 51 says Double
> Quink, released in 1939, was renamed as Parker 51
> Ink when the 51 pen was released in 1941. They
> make no mention of a following name change from
> Parker 51 Ink to Superchrome. Since they had
> unrivaled access (in recent times) to Parker
> archives and didn't mention a change, I suspect
> Parker 51 Ink and Superchrome were different
> products. Do you have a source for this change?
Hi Mark,
From what I've gathered from various sources (articles, ads from the
past, ink bottles, old catalogs and stuff...) I just always assumed that
Parker had two main lines of ink... one a standard, self-cleaning ink
which bore the names Quink and Super Quink, and the second, a fast
drying ("high velocity"), highly alkaline ink for which the Parker 51
was eventually developed to handle. I've seen old bottles and boxes of
Parker 51 Ink and just always thought that they predated Superchrome.
I've seen old ads (c. 1948 and later) that mention both Quink and
Superchrome (Superchrome for your 51, Quink for all your other pens),
but I've never seen an ad mentioning both Parker 51 Ink and Superchrome.
I realize this isn't hard evidence, and I'm Parker historian (not by any
stretch of the imagination).
An article published in the Spring 2002 issue of The PENnant, authored
by Michael Fultz, Dan Zazove, and Geof Parker, states the following:
"The 51 story really starts in 1930. In that year the Parker Pen Company
founded its research division with the hiring of Galen Sayler. Sayler
was a chemist and was recruited to improve Parker's inks. His first
triumph was the development of Quink, a quick drying, colorfast ink.
Soon, however, he began experimenting with even faster drying inks.
These experiments eventually led to Parker's 51 Inks and, later,
Superchrome inks--these, however, dried almost instantly, both on paper
and on the nib. Moreover, they were strongly alkaline (most inks were
somewhat acidic) and tended to rapidly degrade sacs. Worse, they
contained solvents not normally found in ink, such as isopropyl alcohol
to (1) lower the surface tension of the ink, and (2) speed evaporation.
These chemicals would actually dissolve some plastics used in pen
manufacture. Even with the ink formulae perfected, the process which led
to the 51 had only just begun."
Here's another article that suggests that Superchrome came after Parker
51 Ink.
http://www.pencollectors.com/pennant/spring99/pengineer.html
I've never seen an ad or catalog entry for Double Quink, but that
doesn't mean anything (again, I am no historian). From what you cited
from Shepherds' book, the name "Double Quink" was used for the alkaline
ink for a short period of time before being renamed Parker 51 Ink. I can
certainly understand why they'd want to draw a clear distinction between
their standard ink (Quink) and their revolutionary "high velocity"
alkaline ink.
I do think Parker 51 Ink became Superchrome as both were highly
alkaline, and later 51 ads mention Superchrome but do not mention Parker
51 Ink. I have an old Parker 51 ad here (dated 1948), which reads, "NEW!
Parker Superchrome Ink for the Parker '51' Only." It doesn't mention
Parker 51 Ink at all. Does Shepherds' book mention when Parker 51 Ink
was discontinued? I wouldn't be surprised if it was d/c'd around 1948.
Let me know if Shepherds' book mentions this... Interesting stuff.
Thanks.
-- B
BL
BL carelessly wrote:
> and I'm Parker historian.
This should read, "...and I'm NO Parker historian."
Sorry about that. -- B
mz
Hi B,
First, the Shepherds' book doesn't give the ending date for Parker
51 Ink. About Superchrome, they say it was launched in 1947 and "was
reputed to be the first basic ink improvement for over 250 years."
They also say there were 17 years of research before release, which
would go back to 1930. According to the Fultz, Zazove, and Parker
article, this is when Sayler joined Parker.
Second, here's the embarrassing part. Reading your latest jogged my
memory. I'd forgotten there was some NOS Superchrome in the back of
my ink shelf in both the original tin and later fiberboard and tin
boxes. The booklet in the original tin shows how to fill both a 51
red band and reg. vac., which matches one of the Shepherds'
illustrations from the original packaging.
The booklet states Superchrome was "Created to a wholly new formula
by Parker scientists and cooperating laboratories," which might lead
one to think Park 51 Ink was something else. HOWEVER, the booklet
also has the Patent No. for Superchrome(1,932,248). This patent for
"Permanent Quick Drying Writing Fluid" listed Carl Miner and Gaylen
Sayler as assignors to Parker on 24 October 1933. This makes me
think the booklet was using just a little hyperbole when describing
Superchrome as wholly new.
Of course the evidence is not conclusive, but I'm leaning your way
now. Superchrome was probably renamed Parker 51 Ink. There isn't any
Double Quink or Parker 51 Ink in the back of that shelf, so I can't
check to see if they might have the same patent nos. as Superchrome.
Gotta admit, it's been a bit since I've been this interested in a
thread in the newsgroup. Thanks for the help with this. Maybe
somebody else will pipe up with some more info.
BTW, that booklet is pretty handy. It also lists the patent nos. and
design patent nos. for the Parker 51.
Mark Z.
who now thinks it might be time to get his ink shelf organized :0)
BL
"mz" wrote:
> ... There isn't any Double Quink or Parker 51 Ink
> in the back of that shelf, so I can't check to see
> if they might have the same patent nos. as
> Superchrome.
That would be interesting... If the patent numbers are different, I'd
want to get my hands on the actual documents to see to what extent the
formulas actually differed... I'd bet their formulations weren't very
different if at all... just minor variations on a theme. Ernesto Soler
has a booklet full of old Parker patents. Ernesto is one of the top
Parker 51 authorities in the U.S. His web site is:
Don Hiscock is another Parker 51 authority. Either one of these guys
should be able to answer the question. Rob Astyk is a good resource as
well. Don posts to Zoss once in a while if you're a member.
> Gotta admit, it's been a bit since I've been this interested in a
> thread in the newsgroup. Thanks for
> the help with this. Maybe somebody else will pipe
> up with some more info. ...
This is fun stuff. Wish I had more time to pursue pen research, but the
day job is just too demanding. Let's keep searching and then follow up
later. Thanks for checking your ink shelf. :) -- B
Free Citizen
"Juhapekka Tolvanen" <SNAFU....@iki.fi.FUBAR.invalid> wrote in message
news:87slxwj...@heresy.ainola.jyu.fi...
>
>
> Well... Here is Wikipedia's article about Fountain pens:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_pen
>
> I added those links pointing to articles about fountain pen
> manufacturers and fountain pen inks. BTW does anybody know, if Dunhill
> makes fountain pens, too?
>
Does Dunhill make fountain pens? Dunhill invented the meaning of exclusivity
in pens before MB came into the scene. In fact it is this tobacco company
that bought MB and repackaged it under the flagship of Richmont.
--
T-H Lim
limt...@yahoo.com
Georgetown, Penang
Malaysia
Free Citizen
"Nick Name" <wynte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122780100....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
There is a board of Administrators who oversee such things.
mz
<snip>
>
> This is fun stuff. Wish I had more time to pursue pen research, but the
> day job is just too demanding. Let's keep searching and then follow up
> later. Thanks for checking your ink shelf. :) -- B
>
I know what you mean; gotta talk the boss into paying me to do FP
research. :0) I'll get back when/if something new turns up.
Mark Z.
BL
> ... Dunhill invented the meaning of exclusivity in
> pens before MB came into the scene. In fact it is
> this tobacco company that bought MB and repackaged
> it under the flagship of Richmont.
Hi Lim,
Alfred H. Dunhill became heavily involved with Japan's Namiki pen
company in the 1920s and helped distribute their products around the
world. Although I don't know this for sure, Dunhill tended to put its
name on pens made by other companies but didn't actually manufacture
pens. I think if the OP wants to add info to an on-line encyclopedia,
some basic research (not just posting queries to newsgroups) would be in
order. -- B
BL
> "Nick Name" wrote:
>> How does Wikipedia work? If anyone can edit it,
>> then Wikipedia is not a reliable research source.
>>
> There is a board of Administrators who oversee such
> things.
Hi Lim,
Administrators? Unfortunately, what they lack is the very thing they
need in order to ensure accuracy... namely, an editorial board or guest
editors with expertise in each of the areas for which there are entries.
Mark Z. did a fantastic job of describing the shortcomings of Wiki in
previous posts... So, rather than repeat them here, I'll simply end by
saying, "What Mark said." :) -- B