MIB vintage pen. Ink it or not?

[Richard]

I have just acquired a Sheaffer Stylist FP/MP set from the 1960s. It's not a high-line model; the pen alone sold for $2.98. This set is MIB, never inked, never dipped, and with chalk marks intact.

 

http://www.richardspens.com/images/collection/zoomed/stylist_school.jpg

 

Should I ink it?

 

There are factions on both sides of this question; some say that a pen without ink is unhappy, while others say that truly mint vintage pens should be preserved as historical artifacts. But I think some of the latter group might switch sides in the case of this particular pen, and if that's the case I'd be seriously interested in exploring the philosophy behind such a decision.

 

A vintage pen is a vintage pen is a vintage pen. Sure, some are older and are currently in shorter supply, but the newer and less rare ones will, in time, become old and rare. Followed to its logical conclusion, this line of thought can only be construed as an argument that no pen should ever be inked, because someday it will be an old, rare historical artifact. I don't think even the most hardnosed preservationists will buy that argument, however, so the question is this:

 

Where is the line between mint vintage pens that should be preserved ab origine and mint vintage pens that don't merit preservation? And who gets to draw that line?

[Titivillus]

Where is the line between mint vintage pens that should be preserved ab origine and mint vintage pens that don't merit preservation? And who gets to draw that line?

Why should there be any question. Do what you want to the pen you purchased it and should have the right to use it. I know there are people out there collecting purist that say that every uninked pen needs to stay pristine and no restoration should ever be done to a pen.

 

I think there is someone trying to set themselves up as grand arbiter of pen worth. But I think it's more useful for market forces to work such that a mint uninked pen is worth sometimes orders of magnitude more than an inked version. Granted this does not take into account a deep pocket user that just has to use every single pen.

 

But to push the argument backwards were there people when FPs were in use that saved a set to preserve for posterity? I would have expected the manufacturer to store archive samples of all pens but that even doesn't seem to have happened. Is there a museum that has a pen collection or do people bequeath their pens?

 

 

An interesting question that I am sure will show supporters on both sides.

[Dillo]

Hi,

 

I would ink it, but, honestly, I don't know where to draw the line.

 

Dillon

[antoniosz]

Richard,

 

When I had 20 pens I thought that they begged to me to be inked.

When I had 50 pens I was still in the "ink it" camp.

Now that I have 300+ pens it makes no longer sense to me to ink pens like these.

What would I try to prove? To see if it writes?

 

I know that you know exactly how Stylists write - you have probably handled many already. Actually I know that you have another one (the "flighter" ). I say keep it as is.

 

The interesting thing is that we all know, for this one at least, it is not an issue of value. What you going to keep a $25 pen from going to $15? For god's sake!

 

Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating to everyone not to ink such pens. All I am saying that for me, now, it makes not sense to ink it. I try to put myself in your place - pretending that I have your knowledge and experience and collection (I wish:)) and I believe that I would say to keep it. To another person - it may make sense to ink it. I have no right to ask them to keep them inked.

 

By the way I am a stylist fan (have a look here )

 

See you in Philly,

 

AZ

 

*** Edited for clarification (it is getting late and the mistakes were too many)

Edited January 5, 2006 by antoniosz

[southpaw]

You as the owner get to draw the line anywhere you wish, even if that means taking a hammer and smashing it to oblivion (which I know you'd never do).

 

If it were me, I might see if some collector wanted the pen at a premium and get a very nice replacement to use in its place - but I'd make sure I got the replacement first. Just my little way of making a jesture at moderation - I know this is a hot button issue for some.

[Michael Wright]

You have the right to do with it what you want.

 

My justification/rationalization for pen accumulating is that all my pens have to be users, so I ink all my pens. But I'm aware of the problem when I find a mint pen (though I do this rarely enough).

 

If it were a *really* old or rare pen, I'd have no problem in deciding not to ink it. With more common pens, what I have tended to do is to try to sell the pen uninked.

 

The argument is, roughly, that when you ink an unused pen, you destroy value. If you get enough pleasure out of using an unused pen, then go ahead and do it -- you destroy value when you eat a frozen pizza. But I don't get any greater pleasure out of writing with an unused pen than I would with a really nice, but used, one. So I try to flick the pen on to someone who's prepared to pay the premium, whether that premium is for having an unused collection item, or for cherry-picking rights.

 

In the case of a Sheaffer Stylist, the premium for unused state is pretty small, I'd have thought (unless that is an unusual colour), so I don't think there's much of an issue here.

 

I also don't think there's an ethical issue, such that some arbitrators might be entitled to Draw a Line. The market doesn't always work in accordance with human values, but there are very few pens of great cultural importance, so you might just as well be guided by the difference in value between the pen used and unused, and whether it's worth it to you to be the first user.

 

This principle holds for modern pens, too. Is it worth it to buy a brand new 149 from the MB Boutique, compared with the cost of a good used one? Sometimes, the answer could be yes.

 

Have fun

 

Michael

[Macuser]

If you want to preserve something, collect stamps. Pens were meant to be innked!

[antoniosz]

If you want to preserve something, collect stamps. Pens were meant to be innked! 

You mean that stamps were not meant to be used?

Incidentally it is perfectly legal to use old stamps, and many people do use them.

[KCat]

You mean that stamps were not meant to be used?

Incidentally it is perfectly legal to use old stamps, and many people do use them.

i tried but they didn't want to stick anymore. I didn't check out the link but it's my understanding that you can't use any fixative on these stamps. I suppose some people get away with it.

[Stylo]

Where is the line between mint vintage pens that should be preserved ab origine and mint vintage pens that don't merit preservation? And who gets to draw that line?

It is a tough question, the answer to which I think depends on the particular circumstances of that pen. You obvously have some feelings about preservation for this pen, so if you have another finish of this model, or if you have at least written with one, it might be easier to sit on it, at least for a while. If you have never experienced it before 9which I doubt ), then it is a tough call.

 

Ideally, one could buy two of each pen, keeping one for use the other for preservation. But of course, one doesn't feel the need to preserve a modern pen that is still in production, and then there are such practical matters as the cost of doing this

 

Yep, I don't think there are any clear cut answers, otherwise collectors would have found them a long time ago

[Titivillus]

Where is the line between mint vintage pens that should be preserved ab origine and mint vintage pens that don't merit preservation? And who gets to draw that line?

It is a tough question, the answer to which I think depends on the particular circumstances of that pen. You obvously have some feelings about preservation for this pen, so if you have another finish of this model, or if you have at least written with one, it might be easier to sit on it, at least for a while. If you have never experienced it before 9which I doubt ), then it is a tough call.

 

Ideally, one could buy two of each pen, keeping one for use the other for preservation. But of course, one doesn't feel the need to preserve a modern pen that is still in production, and then there are such practical matters as the cost of doing this

 

Yep, I don't think there are any clear cut answers, otherwise collectors would have found them a long time ago

I guess that's a bigger question, who are you preserving the pen for. There doesn't seem to be any central location for pristine examples and unless you make you intentions known when you die most likely your pens might be a sumgai.

So you have a pen you don't use and then some else has to make a decision.

 

Kurt H

[Glenn-SC]

INK IT!!!!!

 

If you think someone (anyone) will object, offer it for sale at a price very fair to you and let some "collector" pay the cost of care and feeding. Then take the money and buy a "user" grade of the same pen and more of something else.

Better yet, make them send you the "user" and money right up front.

[Guest Denis Richard]

As everyone said, you draw the line of course.

 

Now, onto the dogmas, and a provocative question ( so not my style ) : Won't the school that preaches an absolute ban on ink on vintage pens be the cause of a precious loss of knowledge and pens in a near future ?

 

My answer is that they might well be. Unless someone can demonstrate to me that the simple fact of inking and using even only once a vintage pen destroys any relevant information about its history or damages it, the ban on inking is ridiculous. More than that, it is dangerous; by maintaining artificially high prices on "mint" uninked pen, they lower the market value of almost pristine pens, which "defect" is to have seen ink once or twice in their life. As the market and hobby develops, how many of those near perfect but inked pens will be deemed uninteresting by future dealers that will only aim at the highest priced models ? How many will end up in drawers, lost in moving of dealers, or simply thrown in the trash, simply considered mere "user pens" ?

 

By principle, I think all uninked pens should be dipped, even if not used, just to cut the legs of the irrational dogmas. Of course, there could be a very rational reason why a pen can never see ink, but I have never heard any (except if it's a special packaging that has historical significance and should not be opened. etc...) .

Edited January 6, 2006 by Denis Richard

[aircraft_electrician]

Jim, I personally would not ink it, and have a gold filled Stylist in the original box with the original price sticker still on it. I chose not to ink it. From what I understand, Stylists weren't terribly good writers anyway, so I figure I'm not missing much. If I really want to experience the way a Stylist writes, there are plenty of user grade examples on eBay that usually sell for less than $10.

 

For me, to ink or not to ink usually depends on how plentiful pens of that model are in mint, un-inked condition, not necessarily how rare the model itself is. I have 2 Parker Vectors and a Sheaffer Imperial IV that I bought new (all 3 for less than the retail price of 1 Vector at an old stationary store that had gone out of business) and I chose not to ink any of them. My reasoning is that while they will never be "rare" pens, they are inexpensive pens, and most were bought to be used. Thirty years from now most of these pens will have been abused, lost or thrown away, and most surviving examples will show the abuse. It is nice to know that there will be some of these pens preserved, in like new condition. Admit it, how many of you think I'm crazy for not inking a Parker Vector and treating it as a collectible?

 

Tom

[Stylo]

Unless someone can demonstrate to me that the simple fact of inking and using even only once a vintage pen destroys any relevant information about its history or damages it, the ban on inking is ridiculous.

Denis,

 

I think it is pretty obvious that inking and using a pen occasionally does not do that. The only preservation is that of the never-used or packaging-included idea, which is mostly important to true collectors.

[Guest Denis Richard]

Unless someone can demonstrate to me that the simple fact of inking and using even only once a vintage pen destroys any relevant information about its history or damages it, the ban on inking is ridiculous.

Denis,

 

I think it is pretty obvious that inking and using a pen occasionally does not do that. The only preservation is that of the never-used or packaging-included idea, which is mostly important to true collectors.

My point is on the "never-used" value. I think here, as in several other areas, collectors advance only noble goals of preservation of historical artefacts when it's purely a market driven reality. I think the hobby will not mature unless collectors become entirely straightforward about their intentions.

 

Packaging of course, can be another story.

[Richard]

From what I understand, Stylists weren't terribly good writers anyway, so I figure I'm not missing much.

That same canard has been directed at the Parker 180. It is unarguably true that some Stylists and 180s write poorly. It is also unarguably true that these pens can be made to write astonishingly well, and in fact my 180s and my other Stylist do just that.

 

However, the point of my original posting is that there are people out there, people highly respected in the hobby, who do think that they have the right, indeed the responsibility ("for the good of the hobby"), to set up rules about things such as inking mint pens -- and these people seem willing to try to make pariahs out of people who don't adhere to their rules. Regardless of which side of this argument you fall on, there must be some question about whether such people are doing more harm than good.

 

It's still a very interesting philosophical point. Here are links to articles advocating both sides:

 

Extra Fine Points, August 2004: The Big Ripoff, by Don Fluckinger

 

Mint Vintage Pens: Preserve ’Em or Ink ’Em Up? by David Isaacson

[beaker606]

Thanks Richard for this debate. I've read both of the articles you've posted before and I can understand both points of view. However, the article that speaks of obligations -- obligations to future generations to preserve mint, uninked pens -- sounds somewhat hollow to me. Museums, libraries and other institutions have obligations to preserve the past. I can certainly envision an organization such as the Pen Collectors of America creating and maintaining a collection of uninked pens and I think it would be a worthy endeavor. I, as an indivdual, am not obliged, despite the author's arguements, unless I choose to place that obligation on myself. Perhaps this is somewhat of a "someone else, not me" arguement, but I think it is valid.

 

As for myself, I will probably never afford an uninked pen worthy of posterity, so the question is largely moot. However, another article by Ann Wells posted on Jim Gaston's site sums up my feelings pretty well: A Story to Live by

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin

Beaker606

Edited January 6, 2006 by beaker606