Sheaffer Identification

[kirchh]

  On 12/27/2014 at 4:14 AM, abw9259 said:

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.

I agree. In some cases, those people's sources are limited to their own imaginations, apparently.

 

--Daniel

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/27/2014 at 4:20 AM, kirchh said:

 

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

 

It was a multifunction design one of which was vest pocket, therefor among other considerations one of the purposes ( by design) was vest pocket. Play with words and interpretations as much as you like but the facts have already been presented by you. I doubt anyone considers the design to have been solely for vest pocket which is the rather petty point you seem to believe makes your position correct, rather it demonstrates an inflexible and rigid adherence that fixates on a relatively minor point at the expense of a broader and logical viewpoint. That's why Jar's initial comments where both fair and reasonable where as your replies where neither.

[kirchh]

  On 12/27/2014 at 5:32 AM, Happy Harry said:

 

It was a multifunction design one of which was vest pocket, therefor among other considerations one of the purposes ( by design) was vest pocket. Play with words and interpretations as much as you like but the facts have already been presented by you. I doubt anyone considers the design to have been solely for vest pocket which is the rather petty point you seem to believe makes your position correct, rather it demonstrates an inflexible and rigid adherence that fixates on a relatively minor point at the expense of a broader and logical viewpoint. That's why Jar's initial comments where both fair and reasonable where as your replies where neither.

 

Incorrect. The claim was made that Tuckaway pens were a line designed to put in a man's vest pockets. That was the entirety of the claim. At an absolute minimum, one could charitably interpret this claim as meaning that Tuckaway pens were a line primarily, if not solely, designed to put in a man's vest pockets.

 

However, not a scintilla of evidence has been offered for this claim, Jar offered none, Lazard offered none, and you have offered none. I, on the other hand, have offered ample evidence that clipless Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed for women, and for 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 have also offered ample evidence that the later Tuckaway with a clip was overwhelmingly marketed as a ladies' pen.

 

You are correct that the facts have been presented by me. Those facts do not support the claim that Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed to put in a man's vest pockets.

 

It is not a "broader and logical viewpoint" that Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed to put in a man's vest pockets, because the evidence, including the fact that vests were going out of style, indicates otherwise. Why is it "logical" that Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed to put in a man's vest pockets, when Sheaffer's marketing materials indicate otherwise, and when vests were fading from fashion? That, instead, is illogical.

 

Jar's comments were neither fair nor unfair, neither reasonable nor unreasonable. They were simply incorrect. Evidence to the contrary -- as opposed to contentless criticism -- is welcomed. So far, none has been forthcoming.

 

As I noted, for some, facts are sometimes just less appealing than made-up stories. I try to at least identify them properly.

 

--Daniel

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/27/2014 at 5:51 AM, kirchh said:

 

Incorrect. The claim was made that Tuckaway pens were a line designed to put in a man's vest pockets. That was the entirety of the claim. At an absolute minimum, one could charitably interpret this claim as meaning that Tuckaway pens were a line primarily, if not solely, designed to put in a man's vest pockets.

 

However, not a scintilla of evidence has been offered for this claim, Jar offered none, Lazard offered none, and you have offered none. I, on the other hand, have offered ample evidence that clipless Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed for women, and for 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 have also offered ample evidence that the later Tuckaway with a clip was overwhelmingly marketed as a ladies' pen.

 

You are correct that the facts have been presented by me. Those facts do not support the claim that Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed to put in a man's vest pockets.

 

It is not a "broader and logical viewpoint" that Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed to put in a man's vest pockets, because the evidence, including the fact that vests were going out of style, indicates otherwise. Why is it "logical" that Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed to put in a man's vest pockets, when Sheaffer's marketing materials indicate otherwise, and when vests were fading from fashion? That, instead, is illogical.

 

Jar's comments were neither fair nor unfair, neither reasonable nor unreasonable. They were simply incorrect. Evidence to the contrary -- as opposed to contentless criticism -- is welcomed. So far, none has been forthcoming.

 

As I noted, for some, facts are sometimes just less appealing than made-up stories. I try to at least identify them properly.

 

--Daniel

 

More word play with no new substance, for a pen to be suitable for a pocket (wherever it be, trouser, vest, coat, shirt and so on) that does not need to be a prime purpose but simply a purpose for which it is suitable. In this case the pen in question fits the purpose.

[kirchh]

  On 12/27/2014 at 6:04 AM, Happy Harry said:

 

More word play with no new substance, for a pen to be suitable for a pocket (wherever it be, trouser, vest, coat, shirt and so on) that does not need to be a prime purpose but simply a purpose for which it is suitable. In this case the pen in question fits the purpose.

I don't need to post new evidence; the evidence I already posted stands uncontroverted. That alone is very telling.

 

Jar didn't say that a Tuckaway happened to fit into a vest pocket. He made a very specific statement about the reason for the design of the Tuckaway line: "Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pt in a man's vest pockets." By altering the clear and unambiguous claim that Jar made in an effort to defend it, you implicitly concede that it is not defensible when accurately represented. A Lamy Safari is suitable for hanging in the seat-back pocket of a Mercedes SUV, but it would be simply incorrect to assert "Lamy Safari pens were a line designed to put in Mercedes SUV seat-back pockets."

 

Your attempt to further mis-state Jar's claim to make it seem less inaccurate by claiming that he was only mentioning one secondary use for which the Tuckaway was suitable is similarly obvious and absurd. Just so no one is taken in, this is the entirety of Jar's assertion that we are discussing:

 

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

 

As noted, this can, at best, be charitably interpreted as "Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed to pt in a man's vest pockets." This is a far cry from the qualitatively different claim that you are now trying to defend, which amounts to, "Tuckaway pens would fit in a man's vest pockets, though that was not what they were primarily designed for." Really, this is a clear-cut straw man argument fallacy.

 

It's really quite strange how people fixate on myths in our hobby even in the face of evidence that demolishes them. Some fables, like this one, are simply created based on what seems sensible; there were pens before the Tuckaway that were advertised as being for vest pockets, and they were short like the Tuckaway, and men wore vests in the old days, so the Tuckaway must have been just another vest-pocket pen. But it's just lazy, and really rather irresponsible, to convert a notion that is no better than a hypothesis and to elevate it to a truth with no basis, and to then tell it to others as though it were fact. Our hobby has many such myths, and they're surprisingly hard to stamp out. People just get so attached to these ideas. I once had an argument at a pen show with another collector who made a very specific claim about a particular pen. The claim was completely false, and he had no evidence for it. I challenged him, and after extensive back-and-forth, where I pressed him as to why he adamantly believed -- and spread -- this information, he finally said, "I choose to believe it, because it's more interesting if it's true." And he meant that as a compelling argument for why what he said was true. That syndrome, I've observed, is disturbingly common.

 

--Daniel

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/27/2014 at 6:35 AM, kirchh said:

I don't need to post new evidence; the evidence I already posted stands uncontroverted. That alone is very telling.

 

Jar didn't say that a Tuckaway happened to fit into a vest pocket. He made a very specific statement about the reason for the design of the Tuckaway line: "Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pt in a man's vest pockets." By altering the clear and unambiguous claim that Jar made in an effort to defend it, you implicitly concede that it is not defensible when accurately represented. A Lamy Safari is suitable for hanging in the seat-back pocket of a Mercedes SUV, but it would be simply incorrect to assert "Lamy Safari pens were a line designed to put in Mercedes SUV seat-back pockets."

 

Your attempt to further mis-state Jar's claim to make it seem less inaccurate by claiming that he was only mentioning one secondary use for which the Tuckaway was suitable is similarly obvious and absurd. Just so no one is taken in, this is the entirety of Jar's assertion that we are discussing:

 

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

 

As noted, this can, at best, be charitably interpreted as "Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed to pt in a man's vest pockets." This is a far cry from the qualitatively different claim that you are now trying to defend, which amounts to, "Tuckaway pens would fit in a man's vest pockets, though that was not what they were primarily designed for." Really, this is a clear-cut straw man argument fallacy.

 

It's really quite strange how people fixate on myths in our hobby even in the face of evidence that demolishes them. Some fables, like this one, are simply created based on what seems sensible; there were pens before the Tuckaway that were advertised as being for vest pockets, and they were short like the Tuckaway, and men wore vests in the old days, so the Tuckaway must have been just another vest-pocket pen. But it's just lazy, and really rather irresponsible, to convert a notion that is no better than a hypothesis and to elevate it to a truth with no basis, and to then tell it to others as though it were fact. Our hobby has many such myths, and they're surprisingly hard to stamp out. People just get so attached to these ideas. I once had an argument at a pen show with another collector who made a very specific claim about a particular pen. The claim was completely false, and he had no evidence for it. I challenged him, and after extensive back-and-forth, where I pressed him as to why he adamantly believed -- and spread -- this information, he finally said, "I choose to believe it, because it's more interesting if it's true." And he meant that as a compelling argument for why what he said was true. That syndrome, I've observed, is disturbingly common.

 

--Daniel

 

Logic fails you yet again...

 

Jar's statement is just a statement that describes one of the uses for which the pen could be used, just as saying it fits in a purse or side pocket ( which describes a vest pocket as well). The word "primary" is your own personal addition to support your petty argument and claim of your correctness.

 

Your claim that adding a clasp changed the purpose of the pen is false, adding a clasp extends it's multipurpose nature. Putting a tow bar on a car doesn't turn it into a truck it just extends it's capacity.

 

The statement isn't incorrect, it just isn't all encompassing of the uses of the pen. Your failure to accept that naming an intended purpose is correct because it doesn't encompass all the purposes of design is a fundamental failure of logic.

 

As to your supporting evidence as to fashion trends, this has been clearly challenged with factual accounts that don't support this. Fashion does change, yet you claim that Sheaffer knew what direction fashion would take which you support with no evidence that they did know future fashion trends. On this you've taken what you perceive as fact and backwardly applied to suit your argument...and you accuse me of straw man tactics !! Really !!

 

You could have approached this topic with a positive and pleasant manner, but no...arrogance and ego ruled. The logical and simple approach would have been to say something along the lines of " while used as a pocket pen I believe the prime purpose was as a purse pen (or whatever) ". You could have presented your point of view without the "bullying" tactics employed.

 

As to fallacies that you seem obsessed with, your own words "The earlier, clipless versions were designed for ladies' purses and men's side pockets" rather than create a "myth" they confirm the multipurpose nature of the pen. You're simply arguing against what you've already said is true.

 

Somehow you've taken a very minor, petty issue and contorted it to the point where you contradict what you claim as fact. More to the point is no one knows exactly what purposes the Tuckaway was designed for as advertising does not always reflect the design purpose but highlight the uses and on that it has been proven the design was multipurpose.

[kirchh]

  On 12/28/2014 at 12:39 AM, Happy Harry said:

Logic fails you yet again...

 

Jar's statement is just a statement that describes one of the uses for which the pen could be used, just as saying it fits in a purse or side pocket ( which describes a vest pocket as well). The word "primary" is your own personal addition to support your petty argument and claim of your correctness.

 

Your claim that adding a clasp changed the purpose of the pen is false, adding a clasp extends it's multipurpose nature. Putting a tow bar on a car doesn't turn it into a truck it just extends it's capacity.

 

The statement isn't incorrect, it just isn't all encompassing of the uses of the pen. Your failure to accept that naming an intended purpose is correct because it doesn't encompass all the purposes of design is a fundamental failure of logic.

 

As to your supporting evidence as to fashion trends, this has been clearly challenged with factual accounts that don't support this. Fashion does change, yet you claim that Sheaffer knew what direction fashion would take which you support with no evidence that they did know future fashion trends. On this you've taken what you perceive as fact and backwardly applied to suit your argument...and you accuse me of straw man tactics !! Really !!

 

You could have approached this topic with a positive and pleasant manner, but no...arrogance and ego ruled. The logical and simple approach would have been to say something along the lines of " while used as a pocket pen I believe the prime purpose was as a purse pen (or whatever) ". You could have presented your point of view without the "bullying" tactics employed.

 

As to fallacies that you seem obsessed with, your own words "The earlier, clipless versions were designed for ladies' purses and men's side pockets" rather than create a "myth" they confirm the multipurpose nature of the pen. You're simply arguing against what you've already said is true.

 

Somehow you've taken a very minor, petty issue and contorted it to the point where you contradict what you claim as fact. More to the point is no one knows exactly what purposes the Tuckaway was designed for as advertising does not always reflect the design purpose but highlight the uses and on that it has been proven the design was multipurpose.

Incorrect on all counts.

 

Jar was explaining the purpose for which he said the Tuckaway (both clipless and clipped, as he made no distinction from the standpoint of the design intention) was designed. He wrote,

 

"Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pt in a man's vest pockets." [i was being charitable by allowing his statement to be taken less narrowly by the insertion of the word "primarily," but you take the position that it needs no such broadening, so I'll retract that generous interpretation.]

 

He was not mentioning a secondary purpose for which the pen wasn't designed, but for which it was "suitable."

 

Neither he, nor you, nor anyone else, has offered any evidence whatsoever of the truth of his claim.

 

You, instead, attempt to materially alter Jar's claim in order to make it defensible. The claim you are attempting to defend is reasonably worded as,

 

"A secondary purpose for which the Tuckaway happens to be suitable is for carrying in a man's vest pockets, though that is not what they were primarily designed for, nor is there any evidence they were marketed for that purpose."

 

So, the good news is that I agree with you on your completely different claim.

 

A parallel. Consider this assertion:

 

"The Lamy Safari was a line designed to put in Mercedes SUV seat-back pockets"

 

I would adjudge this claim as wrong. You would defend it as correct, because a Lamy Safari is suitable for clipping to Mercedes SUV seat-back pockets, even if that's not it's primary purpose. I am quite comfortable that readers are capable of assessing our respective positions.

 

  Quote

 

Your claim that adding a clasp changed the purpose of the pen is false

 

Please provide the exact quote of mine to which you refer. Then we can discuss this point.

 

  Quote

 

As to your supporting evidence as to fashion trends, this has been clearly challenged with factual accounts that don't support this.

 

Incorrect on all counts. No evidence of the general trend in suit styles during the period under discussion has been presented. If I missed it, please quote it. You mention "factual accounts;" all I've seen is an anecdote or two which appear to be secondhand and are unspecific about the time period. Surely that doesn't meet your standards of evidence.

 

  Quote

Fashion does change, yet you claim that Sheaffer knew what direction fashion would take which you support with no evidence that they did know future fashion trends.

If you want to engage in an honest discussion, don't fabricate things.

 

Please provide the exact quote of mine where I claimed that Sheaffer knew what direction fashion would take. Failure to do so reasonably represents a retraction of this characterization.

 

  Quote

On this you've taken what you perceive as fact and backwardly applied to suit your argument...and you accuse me of straw man tactics !! Really !!

 

False. I've taken what is a fact and shown how it explains Sheaffer's marketing thrust with it's products. I don't understand the use of the, um, term "backwardly;" we are discussing events that took place over seventy years ago.

 

You also don't seem to know what a "straw man" fallacy is, but Google is your friend there, so I won't take up more space here explaining it.

 

  Quote

You could have approached this topic with a positive and pleasant manner, but no...arrogance and ego ruled. The logical and simple approach would have been to say something along the lines of " while used as a pocket pen I believe the prime purpose was as a purse pen (or whatever) ".

 

I'm not really interested in insults such as those you have been hurling; they have no place in a constructive discussion. I suggest avoiding them. Tone trolling is distinctly unproductive.

 

The alternative statement you proffer has a false embedded assumption, which is that Jar's statement meant only that a Tuckaway was suitable for placement in a pocket. But, of course, that's not what he said at all. He said,

 

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

 

Not that they were "suitable" for carrying in "a pocket" as a secondary function. Therefore, it would have made no sense for me to have responded, "while used as a pocket pen I believe the prime purpose was as a purse pen (or whatever)," because that would not have addressed the assertion that Jar made.

 

  Quote

You could have presented your point of view without the "bullying" tactics employed.

 

Yet, you characterize others' posts as "blah blah blah" and insult other posters with name-calling. I suspect Jar is a big boy; if he feels bullied, I'm pretty sure he'd take care of himself. And, of course, providing facts and lines of reasoning, no matter how distasteful they may be, is not bullying. Why'd you put that word in scare quotes, by the way?

 

  Quote

The statement isn't incorrect, it just isn't all encompassing of the uses of the pen. Your failure to accept that naming an intended purpose is correct because it doesn't encompass all the purposes of design is a fundamental failure of logic.

 

This is a form of the black-white fallacy. Of course, I never stated that Jar was making an all-encompassing claim of the uses of the pen; you are invited to post an exact quote of mine in which I characterize it as such. The failure of logic is yours when you engage is this combination straw man and black-white fallacy.

 

You seem to be mischaracterizing my position intentionally, which is most disappointing. You've already acknowledged that I charitably interpreted Jar's claim as being for the primary design intention of the Tuckaway, which clearly shows I was not characterizing his claim as being for all possible purposes of the pen. Therefore, your present charge is thoroughly disingenuous.

 

  Quote

As to fallacies that you seem obsessed with, your own words "The earlier, clipless versions were designed for ladies' purses and men's side pockets" rather than create a "myth" they confirm the multipurpose nature of the pen. You're simply arguing against what you've already said is true.

 

First, a correction: I'm not obsessed with your logical fallacies; I will, however, point them out when they appear. Casting my thoroughness in this regard as an obsession is a disappointing -- and doomed -- tactic to try to attack me rather than deal with the facts and reasoning I present.

 

Next, you once again mischaracterize my statements. Please provide an exact quote of mine where I state that the pen was designed for carrying in only a single way. Failure to do so is reasonably taken as an admission that I made no such claim, and that my argument has been entirely consistent throughout this discussion.

 

  Quote

Somehow you've taken a very minor, petty issue...

 

It's strange that you repeatedly refer to this discussion as "petty." I don't think it's petty at all; I think it's important, because it gets to a central issue in our hobby: the well-meaning fabrication of information and the dissemination of that fabricated information. So that explains why I am interested in continuing to discuss this question. You, on the other hand, adjudge the discussion as "petty," so it's puzzling that you continue to engage in it. If you find it petty, and you believe my position is obviously wrong and it has been demonstrated to be such, and you do not enjoy engaging in discussion with me, why do you continue to do so? That's a head-scratcher.

 

  Quote

...and contorted it to the point where you contradict what you claim as fact.

 

See above. You will be unable to produce exact quotes of statements I've made where I contradict what I claim as fact. Exact quotes are needed because of your demonstrated predilection for mischaracterizing what I write.

 

  Quote

More to the point is no one knows exactly what purposes the Tuckaway was designed for as advertising does not always reflect the design purpose but highlight the uses and on that it has been proven the design was multipurpose.

 

What a bizarre statement. Here, you state that Jar must be wrong when he writes,

 

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

 

...because "no one knows exactly what purposes the Tuckaway was designed for".

 

I disagree as regards the value of period advertising and catalogs when ascertaining the design purpose of consumer products. I believe that, in general, manufacturers who designed products for particular purposes would advertise those products for those purposes. You, apparently, believe otherwise. That's certainly your prerogative, though I find it more than a little irrational.

 

--Daniel

Edited December 28, 2014 by kirchh

[Roger W.]

The various bible/ King James thing fails utterly as there is only one writer in our case Sheaffer (and that can sometimes be open to interpretation). Based on Sheaffer documentation, Daniel, is illustrating what they intended the pen for. That it can be used else wise is not relevant. Doing so is how we have myths in this hobby that become nonsensical and that is why you have to stick with Sheaffer's documentation.

 

Roger W.

[abw9259]

Reading this thread almost lead me to suggest a somewhat illogical place to store a tuckaway not listed in Sheaffer's documentation but most likely suggested at least once by a sales clerk to some prospective buyers.

Edited December 28, 2014 by abw9259

[jar]

  On 12/28/2014 at 3:39 AM, abw9259 said:

Reading this thread almost lead me to suggest a somewhat illogical place to store a tuckaway not listed in Sheaffer's documentation but most likely suggested at least once by a sales clerk to some prospective buyers.

 

Ah yes. Sideways.

[kirchh]

In 1941, Sheaffer said the (clipless) Tuckaway was "for ladies' purses, men's trousers, military use". No mention of vests. Vests had been going out of style for a few years at that point.

 

--Daniel

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/28/2014 at 2:29 AM, kirchh said:

Incorrect on all counts.

 

Jar was explaining the purpose for which he said the Tuckaway (both clipless and clipped, as he made no distinction from the standpoint of the design intention) was designed. He wrote,

 

"Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pt in a man's vest pockets." [i was being charitable by allowing his statement to be taken less narrowly by the insertion of the word "primarily," but you take the position that it needs no such broadening, so I'll retract that generous interpretation.]

 

He was not mentioning a secondary purpose for which the pen wasn't designed, but for which it was "suitable."

 

Neither he, nor you, nor anyone else, has offered any evidence whatsoever of the truth of his claim.

 

You, instead, attempt to materially alter Jar's claim in order to make it defensible. The claim you are attempting to defend is reasonably worded as,

 

"A secondary purpose for which the Tuckaway happens to be suitable is for carrying in a man's vest pockets, though that is not what they were primarily designed for, nor is there any evidence they were marketed for that purpose."

 

So, the good news is that I agree with you on your completely different claim.

 

A parallel. Consider this assertion:

 

"The Lamy Safari was a line designed to put in Mercedes SUV seat-back pockets"

 

I would adjudge this claim as wrong. You would defend it as correct, because a Lamy Safari is suitable for clipping to Mercedes SUV seat-back pockets, even if that's not it's primary purpose. I am quite comfortable that readers are capable of assessing our respective positions.

 

 

Please provide the exact quote of mine to which you refer. Then we can discuss this point.

 

 

Incorrect on all counts. No evidence of the general trend in suit styles during the period under discussion has been presented. If I missed it, please quote it. You mention "factual accounts;" all I've seen is an anecdote or two which appear to be secondhand and are unspecific about the time period. Surely that doesn't meet your standards of evidence.

 

If you want to engage in an honest discussion, don't fabricate things.

 

Please provide the exact quote of mine where I claimed that Sheaffer knew what direction fashion would take. Failure to do so reasonably represents a retraction of this characterization.

 

 

False. I've taken what is a fact and shown how it explains Sheaffer's marketing thrust with it's products. I don't understand the use of the, um, term "backwardly;" we are discussing events that took place over seventy years ago.

 

You also don't seem to know what a "straw man" fallacy is, but Google is your friend there, so I won't take up more space here explaining it.

 

 

I'm not really interested in insults such as those you have been hurling; they have no place in a constructive discussion. I suggest avoiding them. Tone trolling is distinctly unproductive.

 

The alternative statement you proffer has a false embedded assumption, which is that Jar's statement meant only that a Tuckaway was suitable for placement in a pocket. But, of course, that's not what he said at all. He said,

 

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

 

Not that they were "suitable" for carrying in "a pocket" as a secondary function. Therefore, it would have made no sense for me to have responded, "while used as a pocket pen I believe the prime purpose was as a purse pen (or whatever)," because that would not have addressed the assertion that Jar made.

 

 

Yet, you characterize others' posts as "blah blah blah" and insult other posters with name-calling. I suspect Jar is a big boy; if he feels bullied, I'm pretty sure he'd take care of himself. And, of course, providing facts and lines of reasoning, no matter how distasteful they may be, is not bullying. Why'd you put that word in scare quotes, by the way?

 

 

This is a form of the black-white fallacy. Of course, I never stated that Jar was making an all-encompassing claim of the uses of the pen; you are invited to post an exact quote of mine in which I characterize it as such. The failure of logic is yours when you engage is this combination straw man and black-white fallacy.

 

You seem to be mischaracterizing my position intentionally, which is most disappointing. You've already acknowledged that I charitably interpreted Jar's claim as being for the primary design intention of the Tuckaway, which clearly shows I was not characterizing his claim as being for all possible purposes of the pen. Therefore, your present charge is thoroughly disingenuous.

 

 

First, a correction: I'm not obsessed with your logical fallacies; I will, however, point them out when they appear. Casting my thoroughness in this regard as an obsession is a disappointing -- and doomed -- tactic to try to attack me rather than deal with the facts and reasoning I present.

 

Next, you once again mischaracterize my statements. Please provide an exact quote of mine where I state that the pen was designed for carrying in only a single way. Failure to do so is reasonably taken as an admission that I made no such claim, and that my argument has been entirely consistent throughout this discussion.

 

 

It's strange that you repeatedly refer to this discussion as "petty." I don't think it's petty at all; I think it's important, because it gets to a central issue in our hobby: the well-meaning fabrication of information and the dissemination of that fabricated information. So that explains why I am interested in continuing to discuss this question. You, on the other hand, adjudge the discussion as "petty," so it's puzzling that you continue to engage in it. If you find it petty, and you believe my position is obviously wrong and it has been demonstrated to be such, and you do not enjoy engaging in discussion with me, why do you continue to do so? That's a head-scratcher.

 

 

See above. You will be unable to produce exact quotes of statements I've made where I contradict what I claim as fact. Exact quotes are needed because of your demonstrated predilection for mischaracterizing what I write.

 

 

What a bizarre statement. Here, you state that Jar must be wrong when he writes,

 

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

 

...because "no one knows exactly what purposes the Tuckaway was designed for".

 

I disagree as regards the value of period advertising and catalogs when ascertaining the design purpose of consumer products. I believe that, in general, manufacturers who designed products for particular purposes would advertise those products for those purposes. You, apparently, believe otherwise. That's certainly your prerogative, though I find it more than a little irrational.

 

--Daniel

 

Strange as it may be I do think the prime purpose was as a purse pen but Sheaffer documentation certainly pointed to it being multipurpose and if you advertise a pen as being suitable for a trouser pocket or side pocket it is a logical conclusion that this includes other pockets. There is no doubt it ended it's life marketed solely at women.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that vest/waistcoats usage declined to any great extent until post war and even then it's usage continued, even into the '60's (limited though).

 

While period advertising is very useful the marketing of the clipless Tuckaway would seem at odds with the concept it was primarily a ladies purse pen. There is little doubt the Tuckaway found it's way into vest pockets, whether Sheaffer advertised it as specifically for that purpose is irrelevant as generally accepted usage takes precedence or that it wasn't a design consideration is unknown. To claim only a specific type of pocket as "acceptable" is stretching reality.

 

You put your own take on Jar's comment. The pen was marketed as being multipurpose, as you've continually pointed out then you decide to define this multipurposeness to exclude a particular type of pocket because it's not specifically mentioned. If you asked Sheaffer in 1941 about it's use in a vest pocket do you really believe they'd say "no, it's only for trouser pockets"? I would conclude from their advertising specifically mentioning trouser pockets was an attempt to expand usage rather than exclude a vest pocket which is why you need to consider practical perspectives.

 

Not knowing the exact design requirements does not exclude possible usages, Jar's statement could well have been part of the design requirement but we do not know if this is correct or incorrect. More to the point is that you don't know it wasn't considered.

[kirchh]

  On 12/28/2014 at 5:51 AM, Happy Harry said:

 

Strange as it may be I do think the prime purpose was as a purse pen but Sheaffer documentation certainly pointed to it being multipurpose and if you advertise a pen as being suitable for a trouser pocket or side pocket it is a logical conclusion that this includes other pockets.

 

Thank you for confirming that there is not a single piece of evidence that the Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pt in a man's vest pockets.

 

  Quote

There is no doubt it ended it's life marketed solely at women.

 

Are you referring to the period when the Tuckaway had acquired a clip?

 

  Quote

There is no evidence to suggest that vest/waistcoats usage declined to any great extent until post war and even then it's usage continued, even into the '60's (limited though).

 

Yet, Sheaffer never mentions vests when describing the merits of the Tuckaway, except to say it's a good choice for the pocket in the summer when vests are not worn.

 

"In 1935, a complete change in style occurred. Loose fitting coats were introduced, trousers began to be tapered at the bottom and suit coats began to have tapered arms. These new trends were only reluctantly accepted by men at first. At first the waistcoat continued to be made in the traditional fitted and snug style. By 1940, the waistcoat [vest] began to be made in a loose style which made it uncomfortable to wear. In fashion magazines of the day, men complained how these new vests continually rode up when they happen to sit down or bend over. Fashionable men changed their preference to the double-breasted suit coat at this time and it would remain in fashion for the next two decades." (Wikipedia)

 

An examination of period photographs of well-dressed professional men will bear this out. Is there even a picture of FDR wearing a vest after 1938?

 

Sheaffer was attuned to fashion trends, as an examination of their advertising and product development over the years will clearly show. Indeed, it wasn't afraid to set fashion trends, so quickly reacting to a shift in clothing styles was a natural act for the company.

 

  Quote

While period advertising is very useful the marketing of the clipless Tuckaway would seem at odds with the concept it was primarily a ladies purse pen.

 

Here's that straw man thing again -- you're fabricating a position I supposedly hold, then you're arguing against that fabricated position. Please provide the exact quote of mine where I stated that the clipless Tuckaway was primarily a ladies' purse pen. Failure to do so is reasonably taken as a retraction of that characterization of my position.

 

  Quote

There is little doubt the Tuckaway found it's way into vest pockets, whether Sheaffer advertised it as specifically for that purpose is irrelevant as generally accepted usage takes precedence

 

Incorrect. "Generally accepted usage" -- of which, by the way, you have exactly zero knowledge in this instance -- has absolutely nothing to do with the design intent behind the pen, and therefore it also has no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy of the following claim (emphasis added):

 

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

 

  Quote

 

To claim only a specific type of pocket as "acceptable" is stretching reality.

 

The mischaracterizing of my position has passed mere bad habit and has entered full-on tic phase. It's really, really unproductive to repeatedly mischaracterize someone else's position the way you have been doing.

 

Please provide an exact quote of mine where I claim that only a specific type of pocket is acceptable. The quote must include the word "acceptable," because you placed it inside quotation marks, indicating I used that word. And, of course, a failure to produce such a quote of mine is reasonably taken to mean that no such quote exists, and that you mischaracterized my position. Again.

 

  Quote

You put your own take on Jar's comment. The pen was marketed as being multipurpose, as you've continually pointed out then you decide to define this multipurposeness to exclude a particular type of pocket because it's not specifically mentioned. If you asked Sheaffer in 1941 about it's use in a vest pocket do you really believe they'd say "no, it's only for trouser pockets"? I would conclude from their advertising specifically mentioning trouser pockets was an attempt to expand usage rather than exclude a vest pocket which is why you need to consider practical perspectives.

 

I usually don't mind refuting even nonsensical points, but I have to be honest; this line of argument is so absurd, and contains so many false characterizations of my statements that I'm very confident that intelligent readers won't need any help from me to see how silly it is.

 

  Quote

Not knowing the exact design requirements does not exclude possible usages, Jar's statement could well have been part of the design requirement but we do not know if this is correct or incorrect. More to the point is that you don't know it wasn't considered.

 

Thank you again for admitting that you do not know if the following statement is accurate:

 

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

 

I'm not nearly as uncertain as you, however, and I believe Sheaffer's marketing materials support my position. I think readers have all the information they'll need to form their own judgments, as long as they are not too confused by your repeated mischaracterizing of my statements in this thread.

 

--Daniel

[Lazard 20]

.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Lazard 20

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/28/2014 at 6:32 AM, kirchh said:

 

Thank you for confirming that there is not a single piece of evidence that the Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pt in a man's vest pockets.

 

 

Are you referring to the period when the Tuckaway had acquired a clip?

 

 

Yet, Sheaffer never mentions vests when describing the merits of the Tuckaway, except to say it's a good choice for the pocket in the summer when vests are not worn.

 

"In 1935, a complete change in style occurred. Loose fitting coats were introduced, trousers began to be tapered at the bottom and suit coats began to have tapered arms. These new trends were only reluctantly accepted by men at first. At first the waistcoat continued to be made in the traditional fitted and snug style. By 1940, the waistcoat [vest] began to be made in a loose style which made it uncomfortable to wear. In fashion magazines of the day, men complained how these new vests continually rode up when they happen to sit down or bend over. Fashionable men changed their preference to the double-breasted suit coat at this time and it would remain in fashion for the next two decades." (Wikipedia)

 

An examination of period photographs of well-dressed professional men will bear this out. Is there even a picture of FDR wearing a vest after 1938?

 

Sheaffer was attuned to fashion trends, as an examination of their advertising and product development over the years will clearly show. Indeed, it wasn't afraid to set fashion trends, so quickly reacting to a shift in clothing styles was a natural act for the company.

 

 

Here's that straw man thing again -- you're fabricating a position I supposedly hold, then you're arguing against that fabricated position. Please provide the exact quote of mine where I stated that the clipless Tuckaway was primarily a ladies' purse pen. Failure to do so is reasonably taken as a retraction of that characterization of my position.

 

 

Incorrect. "Generally accepted usage" -- of which, by the way, you have exactly zero knowledge in this instance -- has absolutely nothing to do with the design intent behind the pen, and therefore it also has no bearing whatsoever on the accuracy of the following claim (emphasis added):

 

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

 

 

The mischaracterizing of my position has passed mere bad habit and has entered full-on tic phase. It's really, really unproductive to repeatedly mischaracterize someone else's position the way you have been doing.

 

Please provide an exact quote of mine where I claim that only a specific type of pocket is acceptable. The quote must include the word "acceptable," because you placed it inside quotation marks, indicating I used that word. And, of course, a failure to produce such a quote of mine is reasonably taken to mean that no such quote exists, and that you mischaracterized my position. Again.

 

 

I usually don't mind refuting even nonsensical points, but I have to be honest; this line of argument is so absurd, and contains so many false characterizations of my statements that I'm very confident that intelligent readers won't need any help from me to see how silly it is.

 

 

Thank you again for admitting that you do not know if the following statement is accurate:

 

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

 

I'm not nearly as uncertain as you, however, and I believe Sheaffer's marketing materials support my position. I think readers have all the information they'll need to form their own judgments, as long as they are not too confused by your repeated mischaracterizing of my statements in this thread.

 

--Daniel

 

The waistcoat remained a required part of men's business clothing, and even casual dress, until the mid-twentieth century. Part of its popularity stemmed from the fact that it added an extra layer of warm cloth between one's body and the elements, but the strict rationing of cloth during the Second World War, the increasing popularity of pullover sweaters and other types of heavy tops, and the increasing general use of men's casual clothing all contributed to its decline. In the United States, the waistcoat began its decline during the 1940s when double-breasted jackets became popular, and by the 1960s it had become a rarity. ( from Wikipedia) ...

 

funny how the internet displays different viewpoints.

 

Of course I don't have to prove anything, you've made a statement and need to prove it correct or in this case prove Jar's statement as incorrect.

 

A quote from you...."I, on the other hand, have offered ample evidence that clipless Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed for women"....

 

Really you could at least take time to read what you've already said before deciding you didn't say it.

 

As for all the "evidence" you've provided....I actually see next to none apart from your believe that your opinion is beyond question.

 

It's simple, you can neither prove nor disprove Jar's statement that one of the intentions of the Tuckaway design was for vest pocket use. The "evidence" produced seems to indicate a multipurpose pen.

 

Again, If you asked Sheaffer in 1941 about it's use in a vest pocket do you really believe they'd say "no, it's only for trouser pockets"?

 

It's up to you to prove your viewpoint, something you haven't done nor will be able to.

[Lazard 20]

http://s17.postimg.org/oge1u4ogv/Sheaffer_S_Tuckaway_any_pocket_Lazard.jpg

 

Not only vest pocket but any pocket to cover the largest sales segment.

[Happy Harry]

Well looks like another myth "busted"....

 

As the name would suggest it now seems that the Tuckaway was a multipurpose design that did indeed include the humble vest pocket, making the statement "primarily designed for women" incorrect and making Jar's statement correct (see ad below) as it was a purpose the pen designed for.

 

I should note period advertising such as presented by Lazard can be easily "googled" up making the selective use of such to support an incorrect position , as Daniel did, rather negative ...

 

  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

 

Daniel, are you now prepared to admit you where wrong?

 

 

 

http://www.pendemonium.com/pics/midnightmadness/070411/shf_481.jpghttp://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j316/mikelkirk99/Sheaffers/SheaffersTuckawayCrest_zps5b5312e1.jpg

[kirchh]

Harry:

 

It saddens me greatly to see you resort to frank dishonesty out of desperation. Lazard's longstanding pattern of posting falsehoods is well-established and amply documented here at FPN, but though I have been becoming concerned about your posts over the last several rounds of discussion in this thread, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt as regards what appeared to be a disturbing increase in dishonest statements. It is with great disappointment that I see you have now taken an action that voids your right to that benefit, as you have crossed over to what is clearly intentional dishonesty.

 

First, some old business. You have constructively retracted many of your previous statements and effectively acknowledged that you mischaracterized my statements and positions (that is, engaged in the straw man fallacy) in an attempt to argue your stance.

 

- You said I'd claimed that Sheaffer knew future fashion trends. That's a claim you fabricated and attributed to me so that you could attack it. Though I have given you ample opportunity, you have failed to support your false characterization of my position, and thus you have retracted it. Thank you.

 

- You said I stated that the clipless Tuckaway was designed with vest pocket in mind. Again, you have been unable to produce the quote of mine where I stated this. You have thus retracted your claim. Thanks.

 

- You said I claimed that adding a clasp changed the purpose of the pen. You fabricated this statement and attributed it to me, then attacked it. Yet, you were unable to produce this supposed quote of mine, which represents another retraction. Appreciate it.

 

- According to you, I said Jar's claim meant that the Tucakway was solely designed for use in vest pockets. That is a fabrication you concocted in order to attack it. You have been unable to produce the statement of mine where I supposedly said this, and thus your dishonest characterization is retracted. No surprise.

 

- You have failed to produce a quote of mine where I stated that the Tuckaway was designed to be carried in only one way. Another retraction by you.

 

- You said I wrote that only a single type of pocket was "acceptable" for the Tuckaway, and you put the word "acceptable" in quotation marks, indicating it is the exact word that I had used. You then attacked that fabricated statement. You can't produce the quote where I said that, because you made it up. Retracted by you. Thanks again.

 

Likely as a result of your failure to succeed in making up positions of mine that you can then attack without my catching these fabrications, you have now employed one of the most cowardly forms of dishonesty -- the intentional mis-quote. Not much surprises me any more -- I have had several extended discussions with Lazard, after all -- but your descending to this sort of tactic brought me up short, and made me realize I really shouldn't have been giving you the benefit of the doubt all along about your earlier fabrications. My mistake.

 

First, you stated that I had said that the clipless Tuckaway "was primarily a ladies purse pen." As I have done so many times before, I asked for the quotation of mine that made that assertion. In all those previous cases where you made something up that I supposedly said, when I challenged you to produce the actual quotation, you of course could not, resulting in the implicit retractions detailed above.

 

But, for some reason, in this case you decided that fabricating a claim of mine and then disappearing when challenged wasn't enough.

 

Instead, here's what you wrote:

 

  Quote

 

A quote from you...."I, on the other hand, have offered ample evidence that clipless Tuckaway pens were a line primarily designed for women"....

 

Really you could at least take time to read what you've already said before deciding you didn't say it.

 

I really don't know what would make you so desperate as to resort to this profoundly dishonest tactic of truncating a quotation to change its meaning so that you could then attack it. Perhaps you were hoping that no one would bother to check the original text of my post; after all, no one but me seems to have pointed out that you fabricated all those other things I'd supposedly said, so maybe you thought you could kick it up a notch to a more flagrant falsehood without anyone learning the truth. I really don't know. But regardless of your motivations, by purposely omitting the next part of what I wrote -- "and for men's side pockets, and that it was positioned as a good pen for summer use by a man when vests are not worn" -- you have engaged in a disgraceful attempt at deception. This is a terribly disappointing act, and it saddens me, though at least others reading this will learn something that will aid them in assessing the veracity of statements made in the future.

 

This could have been an engaging, productive discussion about an interesting point of pen history. But to have a discussion of that type, the participants need to adhere to certain minimal standards of honesty. That standard has not been met. Not even close.

 

--Daniel

Edited December 30, 2014 by kirchh

[abw9259]

Interesting to note that pan1985 has yet to post again--similarly in several other threads that have devolved into nerdy monologues bent on personal attacks couched in "logic" many new posters seem to never post again... I wonder why?

 

One (possibly me) would have to wonder what is the point of taking part in an enjoyable hobby loaded with history, economics, design, marketing, great writers and the not so great, and other dorky wonderment if the idea of having a beer with the people who share my passion would cause me cross the street and head to another bar to get ploughed with cheap bourbon and Pabst to avoid those very people and erase the sweet memories of my love for fountain pens?

 

As an attorney, bike nerd, whole food/slow food weirdo, who went to a Kudzu League/southern ivy school I am more than used to ongoing debates, people who take things too seriously, and an ever present need to be right, however in my dorky pursuits I have never witnessed such an ongoing and joyless "discussion" that seems to have no point except to demoralize anyone who poses a question or seeks to share or elucidate an idea.

 

P.S. why can I use the word dorky but not (bleep) (d-rk) without being auto edited to bleep

Edited December 30, 2014 by abw9259

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/30/2014 at 1:45 AM, abw9259 said:

Interesting to note that pan1985 has yet to post again--similarly in several other threads that have devolved into nerdy monologues bent on personal attacks couched in "logic" many new posters seem to never post again... I wonder why?

 

One (possibly me) would have to wonder what is the point of taking part in an enjoyable hobby loaded with history, economics, design, marketing, great writers and the not so great, and other dorky wonderment if the idea of having a beer with the people who share my passion would cause me cross the street to get ploughed with cheap bourbon and Pabst to avoid those very people?

 

As an attorney, bike (bleep), whole food/slow food weirdo, who went to a Kudzu League/southern ivy school I am more than used to ongoing debates, people who take things too seriously, and an ever present need to be right, however in my dorky pursuits I have never witnessed such an ongoing and joyless "discussion" that seems to have no point except to demoralize anyone who poses a question or seeks to share or elucidate an idea.

 

Actually it does have a point, to determine what the pen in question was designed for. That's it's done in the fashion it has been is more that all involved enjoy a bit of a stoush, and all give and take a fair amount in perusing the end result. Daniel is a very motivated and powerful performer in these type of discussions and probably enjoys the challenges thrown at him. Is it that serious ? Not really.