Waterman's Ideal No. 52 BCHR with gold bands

[soapytwist]

I've been rationalising my collection recently and have been coming across some overlooked pens. As a way of evaluating here's a quick review.

 

First Impressions (9)

Looks great - the hard rubber is hardly discloloured, and the small amount of gold add an understated oppulence.

 

Appearance (8)

Looks like a fairly standard clipless pen

 

Design/Size/Weight (8)

Again, nothing to write home about on the design front (it won’t win any prizes for innovation), but the proportions and weight are good.

 

Nib (6)

In need of smoothing; looks nice and in keeping with the rest of the pen. It has a ‘B’ near the 14K mark, but I’m not sure if this means broad or not. A thin broad if it is!

 

Filling System (8)

Solid lever fill; the lever is actually held in place by a couple of bumps in the metal when not in use.

 

Cost and Value (10)

I got it for nothing so maximum points here...

 

Conclusion (8)

One of those pens that looks great to non-FP users but lacks a certain feel when you’ve handled other pens.

 

 

 

[diplomat]

Nice review. I wonder does the nib as some flex at all? 52s are famous for their full flex nib but this one seems stiffer than my Sheaffer's Balances and Flat Tops!

 

Loved the HR engraving.

 

Cheers,

[ethernautrix]

Nice review, soapytwist. I like your pen, but I really like your handwriting! It has a lot of character.

[MattN]

Richard Binder's reference material indicates that Waterman switched the last of their pens over to celluloid in 1934, which does seem to make the 1937 hallmark anomalous. Perhaps the original cap band broke and was replaced by a jeweller in 1937?

[gregamckinney]

Richard Binder's reference material indicates that Waterman switched the last of their pens over to celluloid in 1934, which does seem to make the 1937 hallmark anomalous. Perhaps the original cap band broke and was replaced by a jeweller in 1937?

 

While Waterman was making primarily celluloid pens starting in the early 1930's, BHR and BCHR pens were still available. I would not consider the 1937 date to be problematic for a BCHR pen.

 

greg

[soapytwist]

Richard Binder's reference material indicates that Waterman switched the last of their pens over to celluloid in 1934, which does seem to make the 1937 hallmark anomalous. Perhaps the original cap band broke and was replaced by a jeweller in 1937?

The hallmark has the Waterman's maker's mark of 'F.D.W.' so it's a factory band. Don't forget this is a Canadian-made one; it may not have received its hallmark until it was imported into the UK, so it could have sat on a shelf for a little while!

[Gran]

Nice review of a nice pen. I know what you mean about using a pen that belonged to a right-handed person. It takes some getting used to.

[Johnny Appleseed]

May I ask where 1937 is on the Hallmark? I can see FDW, and 375 (the gold content for 9ct gold) and a few other things I can't make out.

 

John

[soapytwist]

Underneath the FDW mark it reads (L to R):

 

'9' (for carat)

'.375' (for gold content)

'B' (date letter for 1937)

Leopard's head mark (on its side - the mark for the London Assay Office)

[Johnny Appleseed]

Underneath the FDW mark it reads (L to R):

 

'9' (for carat)

'.375' (for gold content)

'B' (date letter for 1937)

Leopard's head mark (on its side - the mark for the London Assay Office)

 

Ah - that makes sense. Thinking about it, I remember reading about the date-codes on Brit. hallmarks.

 

You guys were so much more sensible than we in the States. Rules and hallmarks and date-codes and the like. We just stuck 14K on things and hoped there wasn't a "Plate" hiding somewhere you couldn't see.

 

Thank you for reviewing this lovely and venerable old pen! Got more than one in my collection (though none still there with such nice color).

 

John