Frankenpen?

[sexauerw]

I just bought an Imperial II on eBay and I suspect that the cap is not correct. According to Jim's PenHero web site, the Imperial II cap should have a relatively long clip marked "Sheaffer's" and without a white dot. Mine has a short clip with a white dot and no lettering at all. If I had to guess I would say that the cap looks like an Imperial 330 cap. But, I've seen several other Imperial IIs for sale with caps identical to mine so it's possible that both cap types are correct. Does anybody know for sure?

 

Here's my pen:

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j66/sexauerw/SheafferImperialII.jpg

[Ernst Bitterman]

There appears to be a plague of Imperial IIs with that cap-- I got one as well a few months ago. When I (and at least one other) posted the same question, the consensus of opinion was that it wasn't the right cap. However, it works as well as the right one, and the one I had was a brilliant writer. It's actually gone to a friend as a graduation gift.

[sexauerw]

There appears to be a plague of Imperial IIs with that cap-- I got one as well a few months ago. When I (and at least one other) posted the same question, the consensus of opinion was that it wasn't the right cap. However, it works as well as the right one, and the one I had was a brilliant writer. It's actually gone to a friend as a graduation gift.

 

Yes, this one is a brilliant writer also, and the blind cap is a perfect fit, the seam almost disappears when the cap is closed. I love the pen, I just wanted to find out more about it.

[Univer]

Hi,

 

Let me issue a disclaimer right at the start: I have a hard time keeping track of the quasi-Imperial models like the 330, 440, 444, etc.

 

Is the cap top round or square (viewed from above)? If it's round, then I think it very likely comes from one of those triple-digit Imperial "cousins."

 

As for a specific model, I wonder if your cap might properly belong to a 440 or a 444. I believe the 440 had a plastic barrel and brushed chrome cap, while the 444 was an all-brushed chrome pen. (So far as I know, the caps of the two models are identical.) The 330, I believe, had a plastic cap and barrel.

 

Parts interchangeability can be a very good thing. But when it comes to the extended Imperial family, sometimes I think Sheaffer took it a bit too far.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

[hari317]

Is the cap top round or square (viewed from above)? If it's round, then I think it very likely comes from one of those triple-digit Imperial "cousins."

 

Hi Jon, it looks square to me from the photos, offtopic: can you point me to some nice article describing these Imperial cousins? I have read the articles on the penhere site.

 

Thanks,

Hari

 

 

[Univer]

Hello Hari,

 

Well, in perfect candor, it looked square to me as well; but I've been wrong about such things before, so I thought I'd ask.

 

I regret to say that I don't know of a single article covering models like the 330, 440 et al. What little I know about them comes from a handful of stickered pens in my collection, as well as the occasional eBay item or online retailer listing featuring such a pen.

 

My understanding - and I'm not by any means putting this forward as definitive - is that these models break down as follows:

 

330: Plastic body/cap, chrome trim, steel nib *

440: Plastic body, brushed chrome cap, steel nib

440XG: Plastic body, brushed chrome cap, gold plate clip, 14K nib **

444: Brushed chrome body/cap, steel nib

444XG: Brushed chrome body/cap, gold plate clip, 14K nib **

 

* I don't know whether there was a 330XG model; I've never seen one.

** I think there may also have been a 440X and a 444X, with either a steel nib and a gold plate clip or a 14K nib and a chrome clip. But don't quote me!

 

In terms of date range, I'd place all of these models somewhere around 1970; I bought a 444, new, in 1971 or thereabouts. All the examples I've seen are cartridge/converter fillers. I think some or all of these models were originally fitted with the button converter, but a squeeze converter may work as well. (The piston converter will not fit.)

 

I can say that none of the price stickers on any of my pens includes the name "Imperial"; in other words, the 330 was not an "Imperial 330." So far as I know, the three-digit designation was the pen's name.

 

I'm sure there are catalogs around that cover these models, but I don't have one. Perhaps some kind soul who does will scan a page or two...?

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

 

 

[sexauerw]

I just found a 1991 Sheaffer catalog that refers to a 440 Triumph ® fountain pen. So that pen had more than a number but wasn't called an Imperial. The catalog didn't mention a 440X, but it wasn't a full-line catalog so that doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

 

The cap looks pretty similar to mine, but the end is round instead of square like mine, and the clip is a little different. The top attachment is much shorter even though the overall length of the clip is about the same. This would allow it to flex a little more.

Edited December 23, 2008 by sexauerw

[Univer]

Hello there Bill,

 

Thanks for the information! (Even though it adds another layer of complexity... :hmm1:)

 

In the 1990s, Sheaffer did a very, very bad thing (for collectors trying to keep track of the various models, anyway) by taking the "Imperial" name - universally recognized as designating an Inlaid Nib model - and prepending the name "Triumph" (theretofore associated with tubular-nib models).

 

I reckon the pen listed in your catalog is a contemporary of the Triumph Imperial. I hadn't realized, though, that the Triumph name was also glommed onto the members of the extended Imperial family as well. That would explain the "440 Triumph."

 

Attached is a quick, rather blurry photo of the only stickered specimen I could locate without some serious digging. This is one of the earlier pens - chrome cap, gold-plated clip, 14K nib - and as you can see, it's stickered "SHEAFFER/444 XG/MEDIUM."

 

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo165/walterasheaffer/440XG.jpg

 

I'm not a bit surprised that the 1990s catalog doesn't include an "X" or "XG" model. By this time, if I remember correctly, there were no 14k-nibbed Imperials (or Imperial wannabes).

 

Of course, none of this really helps with the question of whether your cap is correct. I wish I could offer something more constructive!

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

 

PS Am I right in remembering that the "X" (gold-plate trim, steel nib) and "XG" (gold-plate trim, gold nib) nomenclature applies to some Targas as well?

Edited December 24, 2008 by Univer

[Ernst Bitterman]

..."Imperial" name - universally recognized as designating an Inlaid Nib model....

 

Except for the stylpoint Imperial I, and the triumph-point Imperial II and III.

 

wwwHHHHhhhheeeEEEEEEE! I think it's time for my medicinal rum.

[Univer]

Ernst, thank you for the correction! You are quite right, of course - although I suspect that for most collectors, the name "Imperial" will always conjure up an image of an Inlaid Nib pen.

 

As long as you're up, pour a tot for me, would you?

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

 

..."Imperial" name - universally recognized as designating an Inlaid Nib model....

 

Except for the stylpoint Imperial I, and the triumph-point Imperial II and III.

 

wwwHHHHhhhheeeEEEEEEE! I think it's time for my medicinal rum.

 

[Ernst Bitterman]

"Tot"... I never got that straight, is that a half or a full pint?

 

http://www.goslingsrum.com/flash/blackseal/index.htm

[sexauerw]

I think we've drifted off topic here, but that's OK. I'll have a pint of bitters and go with the flow. But seriously, I thank all you good folks for your wisdom and helpful contributions. It seems that my cap is not "correct" but that there are many pens like it. It's a great user pen so I'll just enjoy it for what it is.

 

Merry Christmas to all, and my best wishes to you for a Very Happy New Year!

 

PS: Ernst, If you slow down your posting rate a bit, you can ring in the New Year with your 2009th post.

Edited December 25, 2008 by sexauerw

[sherbie]

all

 

I've just bought a pen from the same family, and as I didnt know what it was I sent a few words and pictures to Jim Mamoulides (thanks Jim), who has identified it as a Sheaffer Triumph 440XG c1973.

 

Here is the description I posted to Jim, with a few pictures:

 

My pen has the following features:

 

cap - brushed stainless steel cap, with a short (3cm) gold filled clip with white dot on top of clip. Cap also has the following marks: "Sheaffer----Made in U.S.A.", with a very thin chrome band at the very bottom of the cap

Barrel - is dark blue plastic, with "SHEAFFER MADE IN U.S.A." on it (in CAPITALS), and has a flat ending, no vent hole

Nib - is shaped exactly shown in above picture - ie V cutout inlaid nib

and is gold (plated?) with (from nib point to body) -

Sheaffer

585 14K R (inside circle)

USA

 

The clutch is all stainless steel or chrome?

The was no filler, just an old used cartridge

It came in an old Sheaffer box - with red satin inside, and (mock?) blue leather outside - with the words, written in white "SHEAFFER. ." PS the second red dot signifies the Sheaffer large white dot !!!

 

Can you please tell me what I have bought (from a flea market for £10)? - is it an Imperial, or Triumph or a Triumph Imperial, and likely date of manufacture?

 

cheers, Sherbie

Edited January 12, 2009 by sherbie

[Univer]

Hello Sherbie,

 

Jim (per his usual practice) has done a splendid job; I fear I have little to add to his model identification or year estimate.

 

The profusion of Imperial models can be confusing; and that confusion is compounded by the tendency among many collectors to extend the "Imperial" designation, in casual conversation, to models that were never sold under that name. Your pen is neither an Imperial nor a Triumph Imperial; it is, however, a contemporary of the Imperial (rather than the Triumph Imperial, which is a later model - c. 1990s). Call it a "close cousin" of the Imperial, if you like, sharing many of the Imperial's design and styling attributes; but if it had a birth certificate, the name thereon would be, simply, 440XG.

 

You did just fine (in my opinion, anyway) with this purchase. Since this is a cartridge/converter pen, it should - assuming no hidden damage, etc. - require little in the way of restoration beyond a thorough cleaning and flushing. In my experience, these pens - particularly when fitted with 14K nibs - are usually excellent writers.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

 

 

[sherbie]

Thanks Jon

 

I certainly struggled to identify this pen for a good couple of weeks before I asked Jim for assistance.

 

The pen does seem in good condition - but despite a good soaking for 2 days, the one problem I'm struggling with is ink throughput. It only came with an old cartridge. I have tried to fill with an oldish squeeze (press bar) filler from a 1982 Sheaffer Targa and this doesnt seem to work. I've also bought a new Sheaffer piston filler and this definately doesnt work (unless I periodically turn the piston to force the flow down)

 

One thing I have definately noticed is that I cant "blow" water through the pen at all - I get out of breath trying !! (with other pens, the water just floods out).

 

Does anyone have any ideas about this :

- do I just use the old cartridge?

- do I have a blockage somewhere?

 

I really dont want to do much to the nib as its inlaid, but is it possible to remove the "plastic" under the nib to clean it??

 

cheers, Sherbie

[Univer]

Hi Sherbie,

 

Well, first things first: don't try to separate the Inlaid Nib from the feed. My understanding is that they are not designed to be removed and reinstalled (paraphrasing from the experts here).

 

Am I right in inferring that the Targa's squeeze converter fits, but will not fill? And are you able physically to force some ink to the tip by turning the piston converter knob? (That would be hopeful.)

 

It does sound like you may have an ink blockage somewhere along the line. (Note that if a converter won't work, a cartridge shouldn't work either.) The following is my approach for attempting to deal with such problems (I'm sure other folks will have helpful suggestions as well).

 

1a. Soak in plain water (done).

1b. Soak in a 10% solution of water and non-sudsing household ammonia (worth trying, I reckon).

1c. A variation on the above: fill the old cartridge with the ammonia solution, place it over the cartridge-piercing tube, and stand the pen (carefully) point down in a glass well padded with tissue.

 

If that doesn't work...

 

2. Use a rubber ear syringe (available at any chemist/pharmacy) to try to force water through the nib unit. Fill with water, place the mouth of the syringe over the cartridge-piercing tube, and squeeze. (The water-and-ammonia solution may be helpful here as well.)

 

My suspicion is that the syringe alone may not do the trick. So...

 

3. A cycle or two (or three) through an ultrasonic cleaner. (Here again, you can use plain water or the ammonia solution.) Place the nib unit in the cleaner, add water and press start. Use cool water (for all these steps); if the water in the ultrasonic starts to get warm, stop and let the nib unit soak a while before starting over.

 

In stubborn cases, I find that I need to combine the cleaning action of the ultrasonic with the flushing action of the syringe, alternating the two until the blockage is cleared.

 

4. If all else fails, it may be possible to insert piano wire through the cartridge tube, pushing it forward to clear any remaining blockage. I would regard that as a last resort, but - executed carefully - that trick has worked for me where others didn't.

 

5. Of course, if every home remedy has failed, one can always seek professional help.

 

If you have elected to use the ammonia solution - I'm a fan myself - remember to flush everything, when you're done, with plain cool water.

 

I hope there's something helpful in all of that. Imperials are pretty robust little pens, and I've found that it's usually possible to get them writing again without undue effort.

 

Best of luck!

 

Jon

Edited January 14, 2009 by Univer

[Tournevis]

So Jon and Jim, this would be a 440, not an Imperial anything, correct?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1025/3163586689_e4724239d2_o.jpg

 

Hello Sherbie,

 

Jim (per his usual practice) has done a splendid job; I fear I have little to add to his model identification or year estimate.

 

The profusion of Imperial models can be confusing; and that confusion is compounded by the tendency among many collectors to extend the "Imperial" designation, in casual conversation, to models that were never sold under that name. Your pen is neither an Imperial nor a Triumph Imperial; it is, however, a contemporary of the Imperial (rather than the Triumph Imperial, which is a later model - c. 1990s). Call it a "close cousin" of the Imperial, if you like, sharing many of the Imperial's design and styling attributes; but if it had a birth certificate, the name thereon would be, simply, 440XG.

 

You did just fine (in my opinion, anyway) with this purchase. Since this is a cartridge/converter pen, it should - assuming no hidden damage, etc. - require little in the way of restoration beyond a thorough cleaning and flushing. In my experience, these pens - particularly when fitted with 14K nibs - are usually excellent writers.

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

[Univer]

...snip...

So Jon and Jim, this would be a 440, not an Imperial anything, correct?

...snip...

Hi,

 

Well, that's my understanding. Factoring in Bill's post above, and depending on its production date, it could possibly be a "Triumph 440"; but I believe you are correct about the essential point: that "Imperial" formed no part of this model's official name.

 

Nice pen!

 

Cheers,

 

Jon

 

[Tournevis]

Thanks Jon. The pen dates from 1970, so not a Triumph.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Tournevis