Sheaffer Identification

[MarkTrain]

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

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.

 

+1

[Happy Harry]

Daniel:

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?

 

HH:

Seems to me you imply that fashion trend and Sheaffer's marketing where connected.

 

HH:

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

 

HH:

You also said "...and that it was positioned as a good pen for summer use by a man when vests are not worn" which implies when a vest was worn the pen could be placed in a vest pocket.

 

Daniel:

- 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.

 

HH:

You did, you stated the clasp version was aimed at women. Which it was at the end of the run but when initially added this is not clear at present.

 

Daniel:

- 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.

 

HH:

Actually you added the word "primary" yourself. You changed what Jar wrote to suit yourself, nor did I use the word "solely". I said if one of the uses was vest pocket then Jar's statement could be considered correct. Again you've used fabrication to distort the facts.

 

Daniel:

- 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.

 

HH:

I don't recall you embracing the Tuckaway as a multipurpose pen, you simply quoted the same uses time and time again while excluding vest pocket.

 

Daniel:

- 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.

 

HH:

You mentioned side pocket and implied vest pocket (and that it was positioned as a good pen for summer use by a man when vests are not worn). You steadfastly refused to accept a vest pocket as an acceptable usage despite implying it. Rather than embracing the concept of multipurpose you did the opposite. Proven as incorrect. I do accept you did not use the word "acceptable" but the intention to limit usage remained.

 

Daniel:

Quote

  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.

 

HH:

Straw man !! What I said is correct. Primary (by definition) is singular as is purpose, this singularity means it can only apply to what immediately follows, namely "designed for women", which makes the rest secondary and therefor irrelevant. I suggested you not play word games earlier. Your failure to understand what you say leads to the wrong conclusion. Do you really think I'd make such a basic error? Nothing dishonest, nothing deceitful, just repeating what you said correctly. And you carry on about "minimal standards of honesty", talk about double standards !! You played word games and failed, that's all there is to it.

 

You need to either word what you say better or understand what you say. Yes, I went hard but your claims of being misquoted etc. are not correct. I do accept you may well have meant a different take on what you said but you had ample chance to correct those and you didn't.

 

In the end you where wrong, simple as that.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Happy Harry

[kirchh]

I'm sorry, Harry. Your serial fabrications, which have now been amply exposed, reveal the fact that an honest and constructive discussion is impossible with you. All of your retractions stand, and several have been further reinforced by your most recent post, wherein you make failed attempts to re-write your prior fabrications in order to make them seem more accurate. The fact that you studiously avoid providing exact quotations of your claims paired with my actual statements provides the most compelling proof of all that not only were you dishonest about characterizing my positions, you are fully aware of this now as you try to backtrack and distort what was written. Therefore, I could do no better job of exposing these fabrications than you yourself have done, and I'm quite confident that no one will be fooled by these clumsy efforts.

 

You conclude with a particularly embarrassing and desperate attempt to justify your disgraceful misquoting of me. Amazingly, you double down on your earlier lie. Now, you claim that in the quote of mine that you dishonestly truncated, I used the word "purpose," which is singular, and therefore the fact that I provided a clear list of several design aims (which you now admit intentionally concealing) was irrelevant -- I had to limit myself only to the first such aim I listed, because the word "purpose" that I used is singular.

 

I guess one more lie doesn't bother you in the least at this point.

 

I never even used the word "purpose" in that quotation. You made that up.

 

I'm sorry for readers who have cringed their way through this.

 

--Daniel

[AZBennett]

This entire thread makes me want to chant "FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT" but then I realize that's simply sophomoric...

 

I recently purchased a beater Tuclaway with the "clasp/clip". While I have average size hands, its fits well in my hand when posted. I plan to restore it and use it when appropriate. It looks like a nice pen I can easily carry around in my old Army CVC jacket that has shallow pen "shoulder" pockets. In fact it fits PERFECTLY, I have no idea why the jacket has these smaller pen pockets as well as the full size pen pockets but it fits nicely and I will use it for my smaller pens.

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/30/2014 at 5:05 PM, kirchh said:

I'm sorry, Harry. Your serial fabrications, which have now been amply exposed, reveal the fact that an honest and constructive discussion is impossible with you. All of your retractions stand, and several have been further reinforced by your most recent post, wherein you make failed attempts to re-write your prior fabrications in order to make them seem more accurate. The fact that you studiously avoid providing exact quotations of your claims paired with my actual statements provides the most compelling proof of all that not only were you dishonest about characterizing my positions, you are fully aware of this now as you try to backtrack and distort what was written. Therefore, I could do no better job of exposing these fabrications than you yourself have done, and I'm quite confident that no one will be fooled by these clumsy efforts.

 

You conclude with a particularly embarrassing and desperate attempt to justify your disgraceful misquoting of me. Amazingly, you double down on your earlier lie. Now, you claim that in the quote of mine that you dishonestly truncated, I used the word "purpose," which is singular, and therefore the fact that I provided a clear list of several design aims (which you now admit intentionally concealing) was irrelevant -- I had to limit myself only to the first such aim I listed, because the word "purpose" that I used is singular.

 

I guess one more lie doesn't bother you in the least at this point.

 

I never even used the word "purpose" in that quotation. You made that up.

 

I'm sorry for readers who have cringed their way through this.

 

--Daniel

 

Lol !!

 

Primarily by definition means prime purpose, they convey exactly the same meaning. Primarily ( as is prime purpose) is singular. Whether or not you used a particular word does not change the meaning. My statement is correct. The meaning of what you said was that the prime purpose was for women.

 

You need to understand the meaning of what you write.

 

Let's look at this:

"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"

 

What does it mean? For instance "for summer use by a man when vests are not worn" offers an alternative when a vest isn't worn which means when a vest is worn the pen would be placed in a vest pocket.

 

That's why your argument has been illogical and contradicts itself because it , by way of it's meaning, says what Jar's original comment did.

 

Your desire for "exact quotes" is not needed, understanding the meaning of them is and that's what I've done time and time again.

 

I appreciate your vast knowledge of Sheaffer which is world class if not world leading but I note the only person to provide period advertising (in entirety) was myself and that it supported Jar's statement. Do you, with your extensive collection of period advertising, really expect me ( with little knowledge of this period) to believe you where not aware of those I posted? I just used google, rather simple. It stretches the imagination that a leading expert isn't aware of easily obtainable material that disproves his claims.

 

I've suggested previously word games are not your strong point, and they aren't. Please just let your knowledge do the talking. This whole saga has been based on your words and their meaning such that you could never prove what you wanted to because you proved Jar's statement as correct because of what you said actually meant. There's little point in simply continuing to try to find some imaginary point you can win on as the issue in question has been resolved.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Happy Harry

[kirchh]

Sorry, Harry. I'm not gong to engage with someone who habitually makes so many dishonest statements.

 

--Daniel

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/30/2014 at 10:42 PM, kirchh said:

Sorry, Harry. I'm not gong to engage with someone who habitually makes so many dishonest statements.

 

--Daniel

 

There is little point of course as just about every single thing you've tried has failed miserably to the point where you now don't even appear to understand what you wrote. Your own words beat you (not me), that's what makes this whole saga comical right to the end. Grow up and learn to behave with at least some dignity.

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/30/2014 at 8:30 PM, AZBennett said:

This entire thread makes me want to chant "FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT" but then I realize that's simply sophomoric...

 

I recently purchased a beater Tuclaway with the "clasp/clip". While I have average size hands, its fits well in my hand when posted. I plan to restore it and use it when appropriate. It looks like a nice pen I can easily carry around in my old Army CVC jacket that has shallow pen "shoulder" pockets. In fact it fits PERFECTLY, I have no idea why the jacket has these smaller pen pockets as well as the full size pen pockets but it fits nicely and I will use it for my smaller pens.

 

Here's another one courtesy of google ( and used under the fair use principle) that pushes the military usage. So maybe designed to fit your pocket!!

http://www.vintagepaperads.com/assets/images/JJ005.jpg

 

Despite the recent "banter" I've found a lot about Tuckaways that had never crossed my mind. As the multipurpose nature of the design became clearer it shows, to me anyway, that it was a remarkable design in what it hoped to achieve.

[kirchh]

  On 12/30/2014 at 10:53 PM, Happy Harry said:

 

There is little point of course as just about every single thing you've tried has failed miserably to the point where you now don't even appear to understand what you wrote. Your own words beat you (not me), that's what makes this whole saga comical right to the end. Grow up and learn to behave with at least some dignity.

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself, and your desperate insults are thoroughly inappropriate here. Thank you.

 

--Daniel

[Happy Harry]

  On 12/30/2014 at 11:07 PM, kirchh said:

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself, and your desperate insults are thoroughly inappropriate here. Thank you.

 

--Daniel

 

Take your own advice.

[jar]

  On 12/30/2014 at 11:07 PM, kirchh said:

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself, and your desperate insults are thoroughly inappropriate here. Thank you.

 

--Daniel

 

 

Feeling better Daniel?

[FarmBoy]

At some point I'm going to Reread this entire thread and figure out who said what.

 

I'm curious about two points:

 

Did the Model Shop set out to design a pen with so many putative uses OR did Marketing come up with them after the pen was in stores for sale.

 

Are there any documents related to the design intent that are pre-release for sale?

 

FB

[Roger W.]

Going back to the early part of the discussion Jar clearly states that "Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pit in a man's vest pockets" was in error as no ads of the 250 that I reviewed covering tuckys state that it was either designed for or even to be used as a vest pen - not a single ad. The clip appears to be added in early 1945 and was designed for men or women as the pen was marked to both sexes serving overseas. All of the early post war ads clearly indicates that the tucky is designed for women (clearly a shift in advertising as that had not been the previous claims as the clipless pens were for purses or trousers). Two ads mention that men find the tucky desirable and it could be carried in the pocket in any position (late 1947 for both) keeping in line with the earlier trouser pocket idea but, being open minded, it could be a vest pocket but, again "vest' is never mentioned in any ads.

 

Being that this pen is a "touchdown" (trademark first in use date of September '48) first advertised in July 1949 dates this pen likely to 1949. Though not advertised in '50 I'm not sure when tuckys were actually discontinued as Sheaffer often still sold pens that it no longer supported with advertising.

 

Roger W.

[Happy Harry]

  On 1/1/2015 at 10:15 AM, Roger W. said:

Going back to the early part of the discussion Jar clearly states that "Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pit in a man's vest pockets" was in error as no ads of the 250 that I reviewed covering tuckys state that it was either designed for or even to be used as a vest pen - not a single ad. The clip appears to be added in early 1945 and was designed for men or women as the pen was marked to both sexes serving overseas. All of the early post war ads clearly indicates that the tucky is designed for women (clearly a shift in advertising as that had not been the previous claims as the clipless pens were for purses or trousers). Two ads mention that men find the tucky desirable and it could be carried in the pocket in any position (late 1947 for both) keeping in line with the earlier trouser pocket idea but, being open minded, it could be a vest pocket but, again "vest' is never mentioned in any ads.

 

Being that this pen is a "touchdown" (trademark first in use date of September '48) first advertised in July 1949 dates this pen likely to 1949. Though not advertised in '50 I'm not sure when tuckys were actually discontinued as Sheaffer often still sold pens that it no longer supported with advertising.

 

Roger W.

 

http://www.pendemonium.com/pics/midnightmadness/070411/shf_481.jpg

 

"made to fit snugly and securely into shirt, trouser, coat or watch pocket- handbags, almost anywhere!..."

 

This must be one you haven't reviewed.

 

It also mentions "when your without your coat and vest".

 

Are you going to say a watch pocket is different to a vest pocket ? or that "almost anywhere" excludes a vest pocket ? Do I need to explain again that by offering an alternative to a vest it also implies that's where the pen would be carried when a vest is worn. That he lists only one purpose doesn't make his statement incorrect it just doesn't mention the multitude of other uses, just as saying a purse pen is correct, or a trouser pen for instance. If I say I use a fry pan for eggs it doesn't mean solely for eggs, it's just one possible usage.

 

Jar's statement was correct and still is, that's proven beyond doubt by the above ad....

[jar]

This is all too funny.

 

FPN is a discussion board folk, not a platform for Ex Cathedra pronouncements. It's an informal communications medium.

[Lazard 20]

  On 1/1/2015 at 10:15 AM, Roger W. said:

All of the early post war ads clearly indicates that the tucky is designed for women (clearly a shift in advertising as that had not been the previous claims as the clipless pens were for purses or trousers).

Roger W.

 

Your are diverting attention. Existing closest catalogs and ads, the post war ads, as today ads, is irrelevant for deny Tuckaway initial design because this was designed many years ago and nobody is discussing here how Sheaffer tried to adapt their marketing strategies for news post war men´s clothing habits.

 

In the origin, 1942, for both, men and women for equal. Let´s see.

 

http://s29.postimg.org/vkoz0ato7/1942_11_Tuckaway_Lazard.jpg

 

  On 1/1/2015 at 10:15 AM, Roger W. said:

Going back to the early part of the discussion Jar clearly states that "Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pit in a man's vest pockets" was in error as no ads of the 250 that I reviewed covering tuckys state that it was either designed for or even to be used as a vest pen - not a single ad.

 

Roger W.

 

False, if a vest pocket is any pocket (ad long before your postwar dates)

 

http://s18.postimg.org/p9y1wdsm1/Sheaffer_S_Tuckaway_any_pocket_Lazard.jpg

 

False, if a vest is a piece of formal wear (before your postwar dates).

 

http://s22.postimg.org/6dsjslfsh/Tuckaway_clipless_Lazard.jpg

 

 

False. If a vest pocket is a shallow pocket.

http://s12.postimg.org/a7yekmovx/Sheaffer_clasp_shallow_pocket_Lazard.jpg

 

While here has been shown with Sheaffer´S words that Tuckaway was intended for SHALLOW POCKET, FORMAL WEAR or ANY POCKET with what this covers, you nor Daniel havent provided a shred of evidence that Tuckaway were NOT designed for, among other purpose, vest pocket niche.

 

One thing is that their ads campaign wished not to be limiting to vest pocket (in men case) addressing "any pocket" and quite another, that was not that one of their destinations.

 

Neither yourself think that was not one of their destinations.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Lazard 20

[Roger W.]

Harry;

 

Good ad and it is a nice catch all for all pockets (and I did miss that claim) - it is found in June '43 Look magazine two years after the introduction of the tucky. It fails to prove that was why the tucky was developed as it is a one off ad. "Made" is not "designed" and if it were specifically designed for vest pockets - which was the claim - then it would be in a lot of the ads starting in '41. The claim was "designed" for and not that it could serve that purpose. Even in your ad it fails to state "vest" and, I'm sorry, that is the primary claim, so Daniel was right.

 

Roger W.

 

Edited to ignore that I'm ignoring something.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Roger W.

[Lazard 20]

  On 1/1/2015 at 4:28 PM, Roger W. said:

Lazard is moronic per usual so I'm ignoring his response.

 

Roger W.

 

False over again.

 

To ignore would be not quote. Quoting you havent ignored and your lack of arguments has forced you to resort to personal insult. Insult attempt that qualify, not to me, as you.

 

Considering that offence is not caused by those who want to but by those who can, I'll let FPN´s readers qualify to you, your adjectives and your lack of arguments.

 

I will take advantage of your attempt to insult and I'll give you this gifts for your incomplete 1943 Sheaffer´s pre-clasp ads colecction. You've earned it!

 

You can read: To carry perfectly in pocket shirt, pants, jacket, vest ... or where you want

 

This in Portuguese, COLETE (click here) = VEST

 

http://s1.postimg.org/urf7gcalr/1943_2_portugues.jpg

... and my favorite, this one in Spanish. CHALECO (click here)= VEST

 

http://s2.postimg.org/ieppplz3t/1943_2.jpg

 

By association of ideas I remember, just now, a Spanish saying:

"It is a "shorter" man than the sleeve of a vest".

"Más corto que las mangas de un chaleco"

  On 1/1/2015 at 4:28 PM, Roger W. said:

Roger W.

 

Edited to ignore that I'm ignoring something.

 

It seems that your new year started badly, you're recoiling?

http://s1.postimg.org/nenpgu7cf/image.jpg

Edited January 1, 2015 by Lazard 20

[FarmBoy]

Lazzard,

My Portuguese is somewhere between non-existent and slightly less than that but it appears to me that your ads are from August 1943, two months after the ad Jar refers to which is from June 1943, thus Roger's statement still stands with respect to the the additional Portuguese ads now being presented.

 

No one is (I think, I still need to go back and reread the entire thread) claiming Sheaffer didn't encourage use in a vest pocket, just that the pen was not initially designed for a vest pocket. I don't think we have established why Sheaffer designed the pen as it did (my second question), but we have, I think, established that the Marketing Department opted to promote many uses of the pen design after it was on the market for a while. Likely reacting to the Public's use of said pen style.

Farmboy

[Lazard 20]

  On 1/1/2015 at 7:02 PM, FarmBoy said:

My Portuguese is somewhere between non-existent and slightly l

 

Farmboy

 

VEST = COLETE = CHALECO.

 

I will help you: in Portuguese COLETE (click here) and, remember, not only in Portuguese, also in Spanish CHALECO (click here).

 

In Portuguese and Brazilian ad:

...tanto na algibeira da camisa, como na das calças, casaco ou do colete.

...Both in the shirt pocket, as in the pants pocket, jacket pocket,or vest pocket. (literally)

 

 

In Spanish ad:

...para llevarse perfectamente en el bolsillo del pantalón, camisa, chaqueta, chaleco.

... to carry perfectly in the trouser pocket, shirt pocket, jacket pocket, vest pocket.(literally)

Edited January 1, 2015 by Lazard 20