Welcome to- The Fountain Pen Community!

PeteWK · Seasoned

1929 Sheaffer Balance Catalog Adendum

DWL · ***

1929 Sheaffer Catalog

PeteWK · Seasoned

It was in a bunch of pages leftover from a spare 1928 catalog Fred had laying around. I overlooked it for a year myself until I noticed the date on it.

PeteWK

-- Edited by PeteWK at 12:58, 2007-09-23

DWL · ***

Is it known what month and magazine this came from?

Is it's rarity of the ad due to low publication of the magazine numbers or?? In short why is it so rare with only these known to exist?

Any information you could share on thses pages would be wonderful.

Just fantastic!
Dennis

PeteWK · Seasoned

Like a lot of Pen catalogs, they simply didn't survive. Ad survived because Libraries saved all their magazines onto microfilm etc. These weren't seen for the historic value they possessed by Pen Store owners so they threw them out. It just so happened that The Fountain Pen Shop in Los Angeles kept much of theirs. This must have come out late in 1929 with the release of the Balance. I would guess September as a publication month and October as a month to get it into their dealer's hands.

PeteWK

Daniel · Newbie

PeteWK wrote:

Below for your viewing pleasure are the only two pages known to exist from Sheaffer's 1929 pen catalog. This was the Catalog introduction of the Balance Pen. Pages 33 and 34....I'm kind of depressed the rest of it isn't there as well.

PeteWK

These aren't pages from some long-lost 1929 Sheaffer catalog; they're merely�add-in pages�to the 1928 catalog. I saw these '28 catalogs with the supplemental pages decades ago (the preceding pages are some desk sets and repair parts,�if I�recall correctly).

I'm surprised the page numbering didn't make that clear to you.

--Daniel

Daniel · Newbie

PeteWK wrote:

This must have come out late in 1929 with the release of the Balance.
PeteWK

How do you arrive at "late 1929" for the release of the Balance?

--Daniel

PeteWK · Seasoned

Well, you are the pen god, Daniel.� I'm surprised to see you over here after your cowardly lion routine with the Balance Pens dating.� I still laugh when I think of you trying to sneak back to edit your posts to make it sound like you had held those three years all along.� You'd have probably gotten away with it had I not consistently quoted you all along.� Did you get any of your buddies to clean up that little loose end for you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

etc etc etc.

As for the balance issue, that was much earlier in the year, first quarter of 1929.� The late 1929 date is attached to the catalog pages.� Sorry I didn't make that clear enough in my previous post.� The page number continuation sounds reasonable.� I'm surprised that got past Fred ie that he failed to mention it when I took the pages for scanning.

Daniel · Newbie

PeteWK wrote:

Well, you are the pen god, Daniel.� I'm surprised to see you over here after your cowardly lion routine with the Balance Pens dating.� I still laugh when I think of you trying to sneak back to edit your posts to make it sound like you had held those three years all along.� You'd have probably gotten away with it had I not consistently quoted you all along.� Did you get any of your buddies to clean up that little loose end for you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

etc etc etc.

As for the balance issue, that was much earlier in the year, first quarter of 1929.� The late 1929 date is attached to the catalog pages.� Sorry I didn't make that clear enough in my previous post.� The page number continuation sounds reasonable.� I'm surprised that got past Fred ie that he failed to mention it when I took the pages for scanning.

A terribly disappointing post that reflects poorly on this forum, especially in light of the fact that you appear to be a moderator. I'd hoped you'd get a fresh start here and that you would be able to engage in discourse without resorting to the sort of childish and inaccurate attacks you�engaged in on FPN, but it seems I misjudged you. Though it will likely fall on deaf ears, I once again ask that you try to restrain yourself when corrections to your posts are made, and that you try to stay with a rational discussion of the topic at hand rather than reflexively descending to unseemly personal attacks; I think you owe at least that to our host.

As to your reference to "those three years", some time has passed, so you may have forgotten that you erroneously claimed that there�are listings in Sheaffer's 1935 and 1937 catalogs for a lever-filling marbled Grey Pearl Lifetime pen. It's that sort of misinformation, along with such claims as the supposed 1929 Balance catalog, that contribute to the confusion we find throughout the hobby, especially among newer collectors. I correctly stated that the lever-filling marbled Grey Pearl Lifetime appeared in the 1936 catalog, but not in the '35 or '37 catalogs, and furthermore that it was likely added to the line between the issuance of the '35 and '36 catalogs based on the configuration of known examples; you then posted a piece of ephemera that proved I was correct in this regard.

I'm not sure what you mean about those Balance pages "getting by Fred"; when you got them, they were inserted into the 1928 catalog, where they belong.

If you wish to continue exploring this subject, please try your utmost to maintain a civil tone.

--Daniel

PeteWK · Seasoned

Daniel, please.� Your civil tone belies the monster underneath.� When some other poster noted that the 37 Pearl pen was a striped model I immediately said, "fine" or whatever.� The last position discussed was that this was a three year pen 1935, 1936 and 1937 which you at first disagreed with then snuck over to edit your posts to make it sound like you had held that position all along, that is once I put up Sheaffer documentation to prove it.� And also you'll need to edit the post about the dating of the 1935 catalog.� You mistated it as being published in June when it was actually published 8-5-35 placing it within weeks of the larger poster I posted a picture from.

Daniel, you're not fooling anybody and you don't at the FPN either.� If you only knew how many emails of support I received and how foolish your mindless ramblings offended people.� No doubt I was over the top on more than one occasion but I never have a problem admitting when I'm wrong; it's simply a normal part of everyone's life - well, almost everyone.

The whole point of this forum is that serious and even in your face discussion can take place without fear of censorship as takes place in the other forum.� If you want to be safe stay there.� If you want to share ideas and have them vigorously tested you're more than welcome here.

PeteWK

PeteWK · Seasoned

Just for grins here's a copy of your edited post:

There's no evidence of which I am aware that Sheaffer ever made an oversize pen in the Blue material as a production item.

Lever-fillers in Grey Pearl are even scarcer than the Vacuum-Fil variety likely because they were made for an even shorter period of time (about a year according to the information I've examined). Edit: As clarified later in this thread, it is reasonable to assume that the lever-filler in marbled Grey Pearl replaced the lever-filler in red-veined Grey Pearl sometime between August of 1935 and July of 1936, and the model appears in the July 1936 catalog, but not in the August 1937 catalog. Therefore, according to this data, the model was likely marketed starting sometime after 8/1935 and ending sometime before 8/1937.

--Daniel

This post has been edited by kirchh: Jul 14 2007, 03:09 AM

You started out claiming the pen in question was about a one year pen and then backtracked when evidence wouldn't support that.� And given that the flier I put up dated from 9-35 and the 1935 catalog dated from 8-4-35 don't you think its a safe bet that Sheaffer had the lever version of that pen ready a few weeks earlier when the catalog came out?� Furthermore, the flier DOESN'T list the vac-fil version.� But that still means it was available.� They both were from the very beginning!� Not because one's in this catalog or that flier but because there was a market for both and Sheaffer sold what their customers wanted.

PeteWK

Daniel · Newbie

PeteWK wrote:

Daniel, please.� Your civil tone belies the monster underneath.� When some other poster noted that the 37 Pearl pen was a striped model I immediately said, "fine" or whatever.� The last position discussed was that this was a three year pen 1935, 1936 and 1937 which you at first disagreed with then snuck over to edit your posts to make it sound like you had held that position all along, that is once I put up Sheaffer documentation to prove it.� And also you'll need to edit the post about the dating of the 1935 catalog.� You mistated it as being published in June when it was actually published 8-5-35 placing it within weeks of the larger poster I posted a picture from.

Daniel, you're not fooling anybody and you don't at the FPN either.� If you only knew how many emails of support I received and how foolish your mindless ramblings offended people.� No doubt I was over the top on more than one occasion but I never have a problem admitting when I'm wrong; it's simply a normal part of everyone's life - well, almost everyone.

The whole point of this forum is that serious and even in your face discussion can take place without fear of censorship as takes place in the other forum.� If you want to be safe stay there.� If you want to share ideas and have them vigorously tested you're more than welcome here.

PeteWK

It seems that memory grows dim with time:

"When some other poster noted that the 37 Pearl pen was a striped model I immediately said, fine' or whatever."

QUOTE(PeteWK @ Jun 24 2007, 11:47 AM)

My issue with that is the Sheaffer Catalogs. They list a Oversize Lever pen in Pearl Grey in 1935, 1936 and 1937. I think this is one of those time when the truth is finding us.

PeteWK

The truth is definitely finding us. Only the 1936 listing is for the marbled Grey Pearl color we're discussing.

--Daniel

"I never have a problem admitting when I'm wrong."

There isn't room here to reproduce your interminable evasions when it came to admitting your error in claiming that the pen in question was listed in the '35 catalog.

"And also you'll need to edit the post about the dating of the 1935 catalog.� You mistated it as being published in June when it was actually published 8-5-35"

I am always eager to correct any errors I have made. Please provide a link to the post in which I made this mistake and I will correct it right away.

Here, again, is the statement I made prior to your posting the 1935 poster you posted regarding the first appearance of the lever-filled OS marbled Grey Pearl Lifetime pen:

"Jun 24 2007, 03:54 PM: Occasionally a lever fill OS Grey Pearl marbled pen will show up with a flat ball clip. I have at least one in that configuration. Difficult to date precisely, but not unreasonable to assume it replaced the red-veined version sometime between the '35 and '36 catalogs."

Your post proved that my assumption was correct.

While we're on this topic, it's a good opportunity to correct your claim that a chromium-trimmed marbled Grey Pearl lever-filler is a non-catalog item:

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=34512&view=findpost&p=319059

--Daniel

Daniel · Newbie

PeteWK wrote:

Just for grins here's a copy of your edited post:

There's no evidence of which I am aware that Sheaffer ever made an oversize pen in the Blue material as a production item.

Lever-fillers in Grey Pearl are even scarcer than the Vacuum-Fil variety likely because they were made for an even shorter period of time (about a year according to the information I've examined). Edit: As clarified later in this thread, it is reasonable to assume that the lever-filler in marbled Grey Pearl replaced the lever-filler in red-veined Grey Pearl sometime between August of 1935 and July of 1936, and the model appears in the July 1936 catalog, but not in the August 1937 catalog. Therefore, according to this data, the model was likely marketed starting sometime after 8/1935 and ending sometime before 8/1937.

--Daniel

This post has been edited by kirchh: Jul 14 2007, 03:09 AM

You started out claiming the pen in question was about a one year pen and then backtracked when evidence wouldn't support that.� And given that the flier I put up dated from 9-35 and the 1935 catalog dated from 8-4-35 don't you think its a safe bet that Sheaffer had the lever version of that pen ready a few weeks earlier when the catalog came out?� Furthermore, the flier DOESN'T list the vac-fil version.� But that still means it was available.� They both were from the very beginning!� Not because one's in this catalog or that flier but because there was a market for both and Sheaffer sold what their customers wanted.

PeteWK

It's getting tiresome straightening out your claims all over again; I have faint hope for this venue. I started out explaining that the pen in question appeared in only one catalog year. You, on the other hand, claimed it appeared in three catalog years. To make that long story short, I was correct about the catalogs; you were wrong.

For the start of marketing, you claimed it was already in the 1935 catalog. I clearly stated that it was not unreasonable to assume it replaced the red-veined version sometime between the '35 and '36 catalogs. I think we've established the accuracy of our respective statements. Of course, I never "backtracked"; I would have been happy to correct any errors of fact that I made, but so far none have come to light (though I am awaiting your posting of my post giving an incorrect date for the 1935 catalog).

"Furthermore, the flier DOESN'T list the vac-fil version.� But that still means it was available.� They both were from the very beginning!"

It is this sort of 'logic' that give such cause for concern. If an item does not appear in advertising, therefore it was available; since it was available, it therefore was available from the "beginning". Since the marbled Grey Pearl pens were available as Vacuum-Fil pens starting�in 1934, you are therefore claiming that from 1934 until 9/1935, Sheaffer made marbled Grey Pearl lever-fillers alongside the Vacuum-Fillers, but didn't once advertise the lever-fillers�and left them out of the 1935 catalog. I guess that makes sense...to you.

"the 1935 catalog dated from 8-4-35"

Here's one of those errors you're so eager to correct. The correct date for the catalog is 8-5-35.

--Daniel

PeteWK · Seasoned

Yuch, why are you even here? I can't prove you misdated the 1935 catalog because you had your buddies at FPN eliminate the whole thread.

Your complaints are so much like Dick Cheney complaining that its unkind of people to point out his mis-deeds.

I'll just let your craziness speak for itself from now on.

Daniel · Newbie

PeteWK wrote:

Yuch, why are you even here? I can't prove you misdated the 1935 catalog because you had your buddies at FPN eliminate the whole thread.

Your complaints are so much like Dick Cheney complaining that its unkind of people to point out his mis-deeds.

I'll just let your craziness speak for itself from now on.

How fascinating. First, you write,

"you'll need to edit the post about the dating of the 1935 catalog."

Then, you say,

"I can't prove you misdated the 1935 catalog because you had your buddies at FPN eliminate the whole thread."

The tiny problem you have here is that the thread you now claim my supposed error was in was deleted months ago, as you've known all along. Now, why would you tell me that I need to edit a post if you already knew the post was long gone? It couldn't be because you were simply wrong about my supposed error -- and when you realized that, all you had left was to pretend my post was deleted. Weak.

As for your deeply paranoid charge that I had my "buddies at FPN eliminate the whole thread", no one was more disappointed than I that the thread was deleted -- I was hoping it would persist forever to help guide other members in assessing the personality that lay behind your posts in order that they would assign them the appropriate amount of credibility. Pity the thread was yanked.

Date: 1 day ago

"The whole point of this forum is that serious and even in your face discussion can take place without fear of censorship as takes place in the other forum.� If you want to be safe stay there.� If you want to share ideas and have them vigorously tested you're more than welcome here."

Date: 10 hr, 40 min. ago

"Yuch, why are you even here?"

You know that old expression about dishing it out and taking it? Take it to heart.

Your deafening silence in response to my question about the chromium-trimmed marbled Grey Pearl lever-filler exposes the hypocrisy behind this statement of yours:

"I never have a problem admitting when I'm wrong."

Your most recent post proves the exact opposite -- as do your many, many evasions on FPN on such topics as the configuration of early Lifetime Flattops (you've never admitted your error regarding your claim that all such pens had cap bands and at least gold filled trim), high clips on Balances (you've never admitted that there is no evidence that high and low clips were both made from the beginning of the Balance's run, contrary to your claim),�the�Balance that you claimed "bucks the system" of Richard's clip dating guide (you never admitted that the pen�actually complies with Richard's guide)...the list goes on and on. Not to mention all the fabrications of contradictory statements I supposedly made, which, when challenged,�you somehow are never able to actually produce (surprise!).

"I'll just let your craziness speak for itself from now on."

A sound principle, which I think I will consider employing.

--Daniel

-- Edited by Daniel at 21:46, 2007-09-21