Sheaffer Identification

[kirchh]

  On 12/25/2014 at 2:35 AM, Lazard 20 said:

  Quote

The earlier, clipless versions were designed for ladies' purses and men's side pockets.

No, at least not exactly. Earlier Tuckaway Clipless, in men´s case, were designed no only for side pockets. Exactly, according Sheaffer´S, for: to slip into their side pockets..., or trousers pockets for summer... or formal wear (*)

 

http://s9.postimg.org/57lki0tov/Tuckaway_clipless_Lazard.jpg

 

(*) Within that pocket in men´s formal wear? If it is in side pocket, why repeat, in side pocket and formal wear? Perhaps because it refers to the vest pocket of formal wear? No doubt the Tuckaway were manufactured to be sold, so one target, inter alia but not less, was many men who wore vest in 1941.

Unsurprisingly, you're mischaracterizing what I wrote, I never stated that the Tuckaway was only intended for carrying in the side pocket. I'd appreciate more care when reading my posts so as to avoid this sort of digression.

 

On your second point, I think this is a simple language problem. To a native speaker, the binding of "formal wear" is clear, and it does not refer to the vest pocket. Here's the sentence re-written with brackets to group terms to make it clearer what is meant:

 

Men like to slip it into their [side pocket or trousers pocket] for [summer or formal wear].

 

This should make it clear that there is no question of anything being "repeated;" "side pocket" and "trousers pocket" are locations, whereas "summer [wear]" and "formal wear" are styles of dress.

 

The reference to summer, of course, pertains to a state of dress where no waistcoat is worn.

 

I do appreciate your posting that clipping that confirms what I have been trying to explain regarding the aim of Sheaffer's clipless Tuckaway. And, again, the later clipped version was primarily targeted at women customers.

 

--Daniel

[abw9259]

  On 12/25/2014 at 2:47 AM, kirchh said:

Interesting, but by 1940, when the Tuckaway was introduced, the vest was in serious decline, fashion-wise, with double-breasted jackets gaining in popularity.

 

--Daniel

 

I am sure you are right in some circles (Jazz Musicians?) but the ivy league preppy style that most Dr.s, lawyers, and white collar professionals followed then as today especially in the south does not typically include double breasted attire except for very formal evening wear.

[kirchh]

  On 12/25/2014 at 3:09 AM, abw9259 said:

 

I am sure you are right in some circles (Jazz Musicians?) but the ivy league preppy style that most Dr.s, lawyers, and white collar professionals followed then as today especially in the south does not typically include double breasted attire except for very formal evening wear.

Cuts and styles changed over the years. The vest had become blousy by the start of WWII, and was not very comfortable, leading to men favoring double-breasted coats for a time. That was a general trend among businessmen and professionals, and not a narrow fad among "Jazz musicians." I'm not sure Harry Truman even dabbled in jazz.

 

--Daniel

[abw9259]

  On 12/25/2014 at 3:15 AM, kirchh said:

Cuts and styles changed over the years. The vest had become blousy by the start of WWII, and was not very comfortable, leading to men favoring double-breasted coats for a time. That was a general trend among businessmen and professionals, and not a narrow fad among "Jazz musicians." I'm not sure Harry Truman even dabbled in jazz.

 

--Daniel

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/truman-transcript/

 

Seems like he may have dabbled as a piano playing haberdasher from Missouri.

 

Its ok to be wrong sometimes... If you are or you ever do get married you'll soon get used to it at some point.

[kirchh]

  On 12/25/2014 at 3:56 AM, abw9259 said:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/truman-transcript/

 

Seems like he may have dabbled as a piano playing haberdasher from Missouri.

 

Its ok to be wrong sometimes... If you are or you ever do get married you'll soon get used to it at some point.

I appreciate the concession, oblique though it is.

 

FDR was another professional who eschewed the vest, which was, as noted, fading in popularity during his terms.

 

--Daniel

[Lazard 20]

  On 12/23/2014 at 11:24 PM, kirchh said:

Later versions with the short clip...

--Daniel

.

 

You are misinformed, Tuckaway had no clip, they had CLASP, the exclusive "Fast-On" clasp.

 

 

  On 12/23/2014 at 11:24 PM, kirchh said:

Later versions with the short clip as seen here were aimed mostly at women.

--Daniel

 

Not so. Triumph Tuckaway were designed, of course, more generically. According sheaffer'S text of the time: Triumph Tuckaway model was designed to carry safely in any position ("in any position" in bold italic is from theirs).

 

So, Later versions were designed too for carry the fpen safety in any position... into a vest pocket, for example.

 

  On 12/23/2014 at 11:24 PM, kirchh said:

Later versions with the short clip as seen here were aimed mostly at women.

--Daniel

 

You are very misinformed. As stated in a Sheaffer´S catalog, because the clasp (they say because the clasp, not because the clip), Sheaffer'S recommended Tuckaway for lady´s purse (Ladies first, gently) but also for shallow pockets (for men too covering the target).

http://s29.postimg.org/wsznt6itz/Sheaffer_clasp_shallow_pocket_Lazard.jpg

 

 

Vest pocket is a shallow pocket, Isn´t it?

Edited December 25, 2014 by Lazard 20

[kirchh]

  On 12/25/2014 at 8:17 AM, Lazard 20 said:

 

You are very misinformed, Tuckaway had no clip, they had CLASP, the exclusive "Fast-On" clasp.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying Sheaffer didn't call it a clip?

 

--Daniel

[Lazard 20]

  On 12/25/2014 at 8:22 AM, kirchh said:

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying Sheaffer didn't call it a clip?

 

--Daniel

 

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying Sheaffer didn't call it as CLASP? Look as they did it:

 

http://s28.postimg.org/pc4ney9kt/Sheaffer_clasp_Lazard.jpg

 

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying Sheaffer´S do not distinguish between clip and clasp? Look as they did it:

 

http://s30.postimg.org/mq17w77n5/Sheaffer_clip_vs_clasp_Lazard.jpg

Edited December 25, 2014 by Lazard 20

[kirchh]

  On 12/25/2014 at 9:22 AM, Lazard 20 said:

 

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying Sheaffer didn't call it as CLASP? Look as they did it:

 

http://s28.postimg.org/pc4ney9kt/Sheaffer_clasp_Lazard.jpg

 

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying Sheaffer´S do not distinguish between clip and clasp? Look as they did it:

 

http://s30.postimg.org/mq17w77n5/Sheaffer_clip_vs_clasp_Lazard.jpg

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

You said I was misinformed when I called it a clip, and that "Tuckaway had no clip".

 

Are you saying that Sheaffer never called it a clip?

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

  On 12/25/2014 at 8:17 AM, Lazard 20 said:

 

  Quote

Later versions with the short clip as seen here were aimed mostly at women.

 

Not so. Triumph Tuckaway were designed, of course, more generically. According sheaffer'S text of the time: Triumph Tuckaway model was designed to carry safely in any position ("in any position" in bold italic is from theirs).

 

So, Later versions were designed too for carry the fpen safety in any position... into a vest pocket, for example.

 

 

You are very misinformed. As stated in a Sheaffer´S catalog, because the clasp (they say because the clasp, not because the clip), Sheaffer'S recommended Tuckaway for lady´s purse (Ladies first, gently) but also for shallow pockets (for men too covering the target).

http://s29.postimg.org/wsznt6itz/Sheaffer_clasp_shallow_pocket_Lazard.jpg

 

 

Vest pocket is a shallow pocket, Isn´t it?

 

Incorrect. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this, again, might be a language problem, rather than mere sloppy reading; I suspect you didn't understand my use of the word "mostly."

 

As you have helped me demonstrate, Sheaffer mostly (mainly, primarily, as their first target, predominantly) aimed the Tuckaway with the "Fast-On" clip at the female demographic. Your example helps show that, along with such pitches as:

 

"Valiant for Men! Valiant TUCKAWAY for women!"

 

"He'll like the he-man dignity of the Valiant...She'll love the feminine daintiness of Tuckaway"

 

"Her Magnificent Possession..."TRIUMPH" TUCKAWAY"

 

"When you give "TRIUMPH" TUCKAWAY, she'll know it's the best!"

 

"A model expressly designed for women. Shorter, slimmer, made to fit the feminine hand....Fast-On clip eliminates danger of tearing fabric"

 

"The writing instrument ensemble particularly designed for women"

 

"Give "TRIUMPH" TUCKAWAY -- she'll thank you through the years..."

 

"It's better for her because it's daintier, longer-lasting and easier to write with"

 

"Sentinel Tuckaway Threesome for Women...Sentinel Deluxe Threesome for Men"

 

""TRIUMPH' TUCKAWAY, designed especially for women"

 

""TRIUMPH' TUCKAWAY is the pen built especially for women"

 

I'll also note that when a Tuckaway is shown in use, the hand holding it is that of a women.

 

Therefore, I have now proven that, as I explained to you, later versions with the short clip as seen here were aimed mostly at women.

 

I don't know why you talked about "Triumph Tuckaways." I never made specific reference to those models; I referred to Tuckaways with a clip. Perhaps you mis-read what I wrote again.

 

As regards whether the Tuckaway was designed for use in a man's vest pocket, please see my earlier comments on that topic if you are interested in learning more.

 

--Daniel

[Lazard 20]

  On 12/25/2014 at 4:40 PM, kirchh said:

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

Are you saying that Sheaffer never called it a clip?

 

--Daniel

 

 

You didn't answer my questions:

 

On contrary to the evidence shown, are you saying Sheaffer didn't call it as CLASP?

 

On contrary to the evidence shown, are you saying Sheaffer´S do not distinguish between clip and clasp?

 

On contrary to the evidence shown, are you saying that Sheaffer'S do not recommended Tuckaway also for shallow pockets and formal wear?

 

But do not bother to answer. So far, you has not shown a shred of evidence that vest pocket was not one of the target segments of Tuckaway. I just wanted to prove your inappropriate, rude and false correction to another FPN user,

 

  On 12/23/2014 at 11:24 PM, kirchh said:

jar, on 19 Dec 2014 - 19:38, said:

 

Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pit in a man's vest pockets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ooOoo ------------------------------------------------------------

Not so. The earlier, clipless versions were designed for ladies' purses and men's side pockets

 

--Daniel

 

Where you showed your misinformation about other targets expressed by Sheaffer' S such as formal wear and shallow pocket covering vest pocket, so:

 

A: You were misinformed about these other target of sales, or

 

B. Your intentionally and dishonestly failed this part of the texts -formal wear and shallow pocket as vest pocket- to give the appearance of reality to your claim.

 

In both cases I have nothing to answer. It is you who must answer yourself one of the two options

 

I do not need answer to you more about this topic. Are the readers, not you, if you do not want to see evidence shown, who have already received information -about what you're saying and what I'm saying- to form their own opinion about your suitable or unsuitable comment concerning if Tuckaway could also be considered, according Sheaffer´S, as "vest pocket" fountain pen. Bye, bye!

Edited December 25, 2014 by Lazard 20

[kirchh]

  On 12/25/2014 at 6:01 PM, Lazard 20 said:

 

 

You didn't answer my questions:

 

On contrary to the evidence shown, are you saying Sheaffer didn't call it as CLASP?

 

On contrary to the evidence shown, are you saying Sheaffer´S do not distinguish between clip and clasp?

 

On contrary to the evidence shown, are you saying that Sheaffer'S do not recommended Tuckaway also for shallow pockets and formal wear?

 

But do not bother to answer. So far, you has not shown a shred of evidence that vest pocket was not one of the target segments of Tuckaway. I just wanted to prove your inappropriate, rude and false correction to another FPN user, and are the readers, not you, if you do not want to see, who have already received information -about what you're saying and what I'm saying- to form their own opinion about your suitable or unsuitable comment concerning if Tuckaway could also be considered, according Sheaffer´S, as "vest pocket" fountain pen. Bye, bye!

 

You seem confused, and not just about what I have written; you now seem confused about what you have written.

 

I referred to later versions of the TUCKAWAY with the short clip.

 

You wrote,

 

"You are misinformed, Tuckaway had no clip"

 

I have now given you multiple chances to clarify -- or retract -- what you wrote. I have asked,

 

"Are you saying that Sheaffer never called it a clip?

 

This is a simple question. However, you evaded it repeatedly; as I've explained previously, when you evade a question, it is generally because you are afraid of the consequences of an (honest) answer.

 

There's nothing to be afraid of, if you're interested in truth. I'm happy to give you another opportunity to stand behind your claim, or to retract it:

 

Are you saying that I am misinformed, because Sheaffer never called it a clip?

 

Will you give a simple, direct answer to this simple, direct question, or will you evade it yet again?

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

  On 12/25/2014 at 6:01 PM, Lazard 20 said:

On contrary to the evidence shown, are you saying Sheaffer didn't call it as CLASP?

 

On contrary to the evidence shown, are you saying Sheaffer´S do not distinguish between clip and clasp?

 

What statement of mine are you referring to? I don't recall making any comment whatsoever about the use of the term "clasp." This might be yet another example of careless readinig.

 

Please provide the direct quotation of mine to which you refer. if you unable to produce such a quotation, the embedded assumption in your question is false, and your question is thus moot.

 

  Quote

On contrary to the evidence shown, are you saying that Sheaffer'S do not recommended Tuckaway also for shallow pockets and formal wear?

 

What statement of mine are you referring to? I don't recall making any comment whatsoever about Sheaffer not recommending the TUCKAWAY for use in shallow pockets and with formal wear. This might be yet another example of careless readinig.

 

Please provide the direct quotation of mine to which you refer. if you unable to produce such a quotation, the embedded assumption in your question is false, and your question is thus moot.

 

  Quote

But do not bother to answer. So far, you has not shown a shred of evidence that vest pocket was not one of the target segments of Tuckaway.

 

Yet again, you don't seem to have read the posts in this topic with care, so you're confused. But I'll again assist you in understanding the subject to which you refer.

 

The claim was made as follows:

 

"Tuckaway pens were a line designed to put in a man's vest pockets."

 

I explained that Sheaffer's promotional materials did not support that claim. If you'd read with care what I wrote, you would know that I did not state that Sheaffer somehow ruled out the use of the pen in a vest pocket; I was specifically addressing the claim that Tuckaway pens were a line designed to put in a man's vest pockets. I suggest a re-reading of my posts; that should clear up your confusion on this point.

 

  Quote

I just wanted to prove your inappropriate, rude and false correction to another FPN user, and are the readers, not you, if you do not want to see, who have already received information -about what you're saying and what I'm saying- to form their own opinion about your suitable or unsuitable comment concerning if Tuckaway could also be considered, according Sheaffer´S, as "vest pocket" fountain pen.

 

My correction was accurate, and no evidence whatsoever has been provide to show otherwise, as a careful reading of this thread will show. Emphasis on the word "careful." Though, again, we might be struggling with a language issue, as you don't seem to grasp the essential distinction between a claim of what something was designed for and the idea of whether that thing "could also be considered" for some other purpose. Then again, it might be something other than a language issue, given past interactions along these lines.

 

  Quote

Bye, bye!

 

It's disappointing that you seem to be abandoning your claims in this thread, but it's not entirely unprecedented; the same thing has happened in previous discussions when it began to be apparent that the alternative was unpalatable to you. Too bad.

 

--Daniel

Edited December 25, 2014 by kirchh

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/24/2014 at 8:41 PM, kirchh said:

I always feel good about combatting misinformation. There's already far too much of it in our hobby with creating new myths.

 

--Daniel

 

The problem with your line of argument on this is that the point of sale information provided to the customer is unknown. Given we weren't there it's unknown what usage the pen was sold for, it's highly likely at the point of sale it was suggested as suitable for what the customer required be it purse, vest pocket or where ever.

 

Simply using written information as "fact" may well mask the reality of what was "spoken". On this topic I think you're reached a conclusion that may well not have been backed up at the point of sale, something neither you nor I could prove conclusively either way.

[kirchh]

  On 12/25/2014 at 11:38 PM, Happy Harry said:

 

The problem with your line of argument on this is that the point of sale information provided to the customer is unknown. Given we weren't there it's unknown what usage the pen was sold for, it's highly likely at the point of sale it was suggested as suitable for what the customer required be it purse, vest pocket or where ever.

 

Simply using written information as "fact" may well mask the reality of what was "spoken". On this topic I think you're reached a conclusion that may well not have been backed up at the point of sale, something neither you nor I could prove conclusively either way.

What a salesperson said to any particular prospect in an effort to make a sale is irrelevant to the question under discussion. The issue is not how a salesperson might have pitched the pen to a person in front of them. The claim was made that the pen was designed for a man's vest pocket. That's the claim under discussion, and which I have addressed. It has nothing to do with what pitch might have been tried by a clerk with a particular customer in some shop in an effort to make a sale.

 

--Daniel

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/26/2014 at 6:30 AM, kirchh said:

What a salesperson said to any particular prospect in an effort to make a sale is irrelevant to the question under discussion. The issue is not how a salesperson might have pitched the pen to a person in front of them. The claim was made that the pen was designed for a man's vest pocket. That's the claim under discussion, and which I have addressed. It has nothing to do with what pitch might have been tried by a clerk with a particular customer in some shop in an effort to make a sale.

 

--Daniel

 

The Tuckaway was designed with vest pocket in mind, as you've already stated in clipless form. Simply adding a clip doesn't change the initial design intention. Really your argument is based more on a petty point and a clear desire to be right, as far as I'm concerned your wrong but you haven't the grace to simply admit it.

I'm surprised you would consider point of sale information provided to a customer by a Sheaffer distributor/agent as "irrelevant" !! That defies logic.

[kirchh]

  On 12/27/2014 at 3:37 AM, Happy Harry said:

The Tuckaway was designed with vest pocket in mind, as you've already stated in clipless form.

 

Please provide the quotation of mine to which you refer.

 

  Quote

Simply adding a clip doesn't change the initial design intention.

 

What is your evidence for this assertion?

 

Why was the clip added?

 

  Quote

Really your argument is based more on a petty point and a clear desire to be right, as far as I'm concerned your wrong but you haven't the grace to simply admit it.

 

Yet you provide no evidence whatsoever that I'm wrong.

 

Indeed, no one has presented any evidence that Tuckaway pens were a line designed to put in a man's vest pockets..

 

I have presented evidence that the clipless Tuckaway was designed for ladies' purses and men's side pockets, and that it was positioned as a good pen for summer use by a man when vests are not worn; I've also presented evidence that the Tuckaway with the "Fast-On" clip was marketed mainly to women. I have also explained that vests were going out of fashion when the first Tuckaway was introduced, as double-breasted suits were becoming the dominant style.

 

  Quote

I'm surprised you would consider point of sale information provided to a customer by a Sheaffer distributor/agent as "irrelevant" !! That defies logic.

 

Sheaffer distributors did not talk to customers during sales interactions. What salespersons spoke about to specific prospects when trying to sell them pens has no bearing on the design intention of the Tuckaway. The best indicator of the market positioning of the Tuckaway is Sheaffer's catalogs and advertisements, of course. I'm surprised I have to explain this. That doesn't defy logic; it is logic.

 

--Daniel

[Happy Harry]

Blah blah blah....

 

" Not so. The earlier, clipless versions were designed for ladies' purses and men's side pockets

 

--Daniel "

 

Do we have to be so petty as argue what exactly a men's side pocket might or might not mean?

[abw9259]

This entire string reminds me of arguing with King James Only religious fundamentalists several years ago. I could point to the Mishnah, differences between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, problems with the translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek into the English language, and the fact that Rabbis and writers in the first century would be familiar with external sources, history, and oral tradition but to no avail. Facts for some people are only facts if they believe they are facts based on their own accepted limited sources.

[kirchh]

  On 12/27/2014 at 4:06 AM, Happy Harry said:

Blah blah blah....

 

" Not so. The earlier, clipless versions were designed for ladies' purses and men's side pockets

 

--Daniel "

 

Do we have to be so petty as argue what exactly a men's side pocket might or might not mean?

 

I note that you offer no substantive response whatsoever to the facts that I have provided.

 

I'm not sure what's "petty" about understanding terms so as to comprehend information. If the meaning of terms when discussing matters of pen history is unimportant to you, I would suggest you simply not engage in such discussions; you can just decide what story pleases you, and go with that.

 

Once again, the claim was made that Tuckaway pens were a line designed to put in a man's vest pockets. No one, you included, has posted any evidence that this is true. I have posted ample evidence that the clipless Tuckaway was designed for ladies' purses and men's side pockets, and that it was positioned as a good pen for summer use by a man when vests are not worn; its suitability for carrying in a pants pocket was also advertised. No one has produced any reference to the pen being designed to be put in a waistcoat pocket. I've also presented a great deal of evidence that the Tuckaway with the "Fast-On" clip was marketed mainly to women. And, again, I have explained that vests were going out of fashion when the first Tuckaway was introduced. Why would Sheaffer design a new writing instrument for a garment that was going out of style?

 

One of the reasons that myths die hard is because people simply like them, regardless of the facts. I do what I can.

 

--Daniel