Sheaffer Identification

[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).

That was the part I understood. The date of the ad is still 1943 (two months after the ad presented by Jar that is addressed by Roger) so the commentary still stands.

[Lazard 20]

That was the part I understood. The date of the ad is still 1943 (two months after the ad presented by Jar that is addressed by Roger) so the commentary still stands.

 

In any case we're closer. Now we dont not discuss Tuckaway as vest pocket but since when.

 

The statement was:

 

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. (let me self-citation)

 

This statement have been shown certainly. The rest, cheaper literature in a vain attempt to justify the unjustifiable

Edited January 1, 2015 by Lazard 20

[Roger W.]

Farmboy;

 

The '40 catalog (first intro'd to dealers August 1, 1940) says it was for "those that have everything". "Tucks away into men's side pockets or ladies' purses." Meant pretty much as a novelty as it assumes you already have a "real" pen so this "fun" pen would be just the thing for someone with an extra $40 as the whole pen was solid 14K. It was an extravagant pen accessory that Sheaffer wanted to sell to rich people. It wasn't advertised to the general public until 9 months later. Seems to me that it started out a a rich persons toy that they expanded to a casual use pen.

 

Roger W.

[Happy Harry]

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.

 

Perhaps "specifically designed" is at odds with the multipurpose intentions it appears the pen had, even in the earliest ads. There was never a primary claim regarding vest pocket usage, just a claim it was part of the design process. It might appear to be but it didn't preclude other design usages or elevate it from a use to the prime purpose of the design. The assumption it did is technically incorrect. Whether Jar's comment is correct or incorrect is a different matter.

[Roger W.]

 

Perhaps "specifically designed" is at odds with the multipurpose intentions it appears the pen had, even in the earliest ads. There was never a primary claim regarding vest pocket usage, just a claim it was part of the design process. It might appear to be but it didn't preclude other design usages or elevate it from a use to the prime purpose of the design. The assumption it did is technically incorrect. Whether Jar's comment is correct or incorrect is a different matter.

Harry;

 

OK, I just quoted what JAR said and the claim was -"Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pit in a man's vest pockets." Straight forward "designed for specific purpose" not "one of the things it could be used for" and not supported by Sheaffer s 1940 catalog nor by ads in 1941. Sheaffer makes no claims that the pen was designed for vest pockets though that use was given out a couple of times later but, mostly purses and trousers really. Had he said "it could be used for" fine. Had he said "designed for trousers and purses" spot on. Vest pockets really not so much. You can't rewrite Sheaffer ad copy today, just won't get you anywhere. Also, can't change the dearth of ads that say "trousers" to mean "vests".

 

Actually, the 1940 catalog description makes it quite clear that the original intent was selling a gimmicky pen to folks that had the money for an extra toy and you slipped that toy into your mens side pocket. So little in the ads points to vests pockets that it makes the statement clearly inaccurate - it is at odds with Sheaffer contemporary documentation.

 

Roger W.

[Happy Harry]

Harry;

 

OK, I just quoted what JAR said and the claim was -"Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pit in a man's vest pockets." Straight forward "designed for specific purpose" not "one of the things it could be used for" and not supported by Sheaffer s 1940 catalog nor by ads in 1941. Sheaffer makes no claims that the pen was designed for vest pockets though that use was given out a couple of times later but, mostly purses and trousers really. Had he said "it could be used for" fine. Had he said "designed for trousers and purses" spot on. Vest pockets really not so much. You can't rewrite Sheaffer ad copy today, just won't get you anywhere. Also, can't change the dearth of ads that say "trousers" to mean "vests".

 

Actually, the 1940 catalog description makes it quite clear that the original intent was selling a gimmicky pen to folks that had the money for an extra toy and you slipped that toy into your mens side pocket. So little in the ads points to vests pockets that it makes the statement clearly inaccurate - it is at odds with Sheaffer contemporary documentation.

 

Roger W.

 

Then there was a second significantly re-designed model that period advertising suggests had an expanded usage in mind.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Happy Harry

[jar]

Harry;

 

OK, I just quoted what JAR said and the claim was -"Tuckaway pens were a line designed to pit in a man's vest pockets." Straight forward "designed for specific purpose" not "one of the things it could be used for" and not supported by Sheaffer s 1940 catalog nor by ads in 1941.

 

Roger W.

 

 

Please point out in my quote where I said "designed for specific purpose"?

 

Your inability to actually read what is written and instead read what you think was written is not my problem.

[FarmBoy]

I've still not read this entire chapter again but I think my questions are/have been answered.

 

It seems that Sheaffer designed said pen (Tuckaway) around 1939 with a release in 1940 with the intent of it being a high priced luxury item with the gimmick that it had no clip and fit easily in a purse or a pocket as a companion to the other Sheaffer pen you already had. Then along comes WW II and in mid-1943 Sheaffer Marketing changes the approach pushing the pen in all sorts of ways after a small change to make the pen less expensive by switching to celluloid instead of gold which must have happened sometime between 1941 and 1943..

I'm happy to be corrected because I haven't quoted anyone--which is because I have not yet gone back and reread the entire thread.

[Happy Harry]

I've still not read this entire chapter again but I think my questions are/have been answered.

 

It seems that Sheaffer designed said pen (Tuckaway) around 1939 with a release in 1940 with the intent of it being a high priced luxury item with the gimmick that it had no clip and fit easily in a purse or a pocket as a companion to the other Sheaffer pen you already had. Then along comes WW II and in mid-1943 Sheaffer Marketing changes the approach pushing the pen in all sorts of ways after a small change to make the pen less expensive by switching to celluloid instead of gold which must have happened sometime between 1941 and 1943..

I'm happy to be corrected because I haven't quoted anyone--which is because I have not yet gone back and reread the entire thread.

 

It appears you may have been mislead on a number of points. Rather than explain the omissions and that "minor change" is incorrect I'll direct you to Mr. Binders Tuckaway article ( here), another who apparently is wrong according to some here.

To me it's absurd to suggest a pen clearly designed for pockets was designed without an obvious pocket ( vest) being considered and has more to do with pettiness than anything else.

[FarmBoy]

 

It appears you may have been mislead on a number of points. Rather than explain the omissions and that "minor change" is incorrect I'll direct you to Mr. Binders Tuckaway article ( here), another who apparently is wrong according to some here.

To me it's absurd to suggest a pen clearly designed for pockets was designed without an obvious pocket ( vest) being considered and has more to do with pettiness than anything else.

I'm good with being corrected if you care to clear up my errors and omissions. I'm more of a Parker guy but have a fare ration of Sheaffer pen sitting in boxes, knowing the real history is of interest.

[mitto]

End this fight please. Why this enimosity for each others ? What purpose does it serve? None, I am sure.

[Ernst Bitterman]

 

 

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

 

 

Are you going to say a watch pocket is different to a vest pocket ?...

 

Just because it seems that this is a thread in which no hair shall remain unsplit, I'll point out that a watch pocket is what the Levi Strauss folks call that useless little extra pocket in the right hand forward pocket of a pair of jeans. I would also absolutely not suggest sticking a Tuckie into that version of a watch pocket.

Edited January 5, 2015 by Ernst Bitterman

[kirchh]

 

 

 

It appears you may have been mislead on a number of points. Rather than explain the omissions and that "minor change" is incorrect I'll direct you to Mr. Binders Tuckaway article ( here), another who apparently is wrong according to some here.

To me it's absurd to suggest a pen clearly designed for pockets was designed without an obvious pocket ( vest) being considered and has more to do with pettiness than anything else.

I'm good with being corrected if you care to clear up my errors and omissions. I'm more of a Parker guy but have a fare ration of Sheaffer pen sitting in boxes, knowing the real history is of interest.

 

Actually, I agree with Richard Binder's TUCKAWAY profile; it seems to correspond nicely with the points I've made here, so I'd say your summary is a pretty accurate one, Todd.

 

--Daniel

Edited January 5, 2015 by kirchh

[domnortheast]

Laugh! I almost wet myself

[FarmBoy]

Laugh! I almost wet myself

Can you elaborate on why?

[domnortheast]

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.

 

 

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

 

 

Can you elaborate on why?

 

Sure, 'cos from the 'outside' the level of absurdity of this er..heated discussion is well into the Pythonesque.

 

The sad thing really though is that in all the brouhaha what of the poor OP? Newcomer to FPN, whose only error was asking some friendly FP people what the pen was he had just acquired. He has had his thread hi-jacked and will likely stuff the pen in a drawer and return to using a ballpoint. Although hopefully he has a sense of humour too and is also falling about the place.

 

I'm completely in agreement with abw9259

Edited January 5, 2015 by domnortheast

[Roger W.]

 

It appears you may have been mislead on a number of points. Rather than explain the omissions and that "minor change" is incorrect I'll direct you to Mr. Binders Tuckaway article ( here), another who apparently is wrong according to some here.

To me it's absurd to suggest a pen clearly designed for pockets was designed without an obvious pocket ( vest) being considered and has more to do with pettiness than anything else.

Harry;

 

You're not good with the source documents but, secondary sources make you much happier. Well, Richard's article is in complete agreement with the source documents now so I can agree with his article as well.

No one was being petty about the vest pocket. It was stated that the tucky was designed for the vest pocket which was not supported by the documentation the earliest of which is the 1940 catalog so I include it here -

 

Seems like Daniel was quoting from the source...

 

Roger W.

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/1940Tucky1.jpg

1940 Catalog - August 1940

Edited January 6, 2015 by Roger W.

[kirchh]

 

Just because it seems that this is a thread in which no hair shall remain unsplit, I'll point out that a watch pocket is what the Levi Strauss folks call that useless little extra pocket in the right hand forward pocket of a pair of jeans. I would also absolutely not suggest sticking a Tuckie into that version of a watch pocket.

 

I wasn't going to bring this up, but since you opened the door, I will point out that there seems to be a mistaken belief by some here that "watch pocket" must mean a pocket in a vest. That's simply wrong.

 

In the trousers of the period, there was often a small pocket just below the waistband called -- that's right -- the "watch pocket." (The Levi's folks didn't invent this term for this pocket, or the pocket itself -- they were simply making pants [and naming the features] the way others made them.)

 

The term that was generally used for the regular pocket in a vest was (believe it or not) "vest pocket."

 

"Happy Harry" wrote,

 

Are you going to say a watch pocket is different to a vest pocket ?

 

Yes.

 

Because it is.

 

--Daniel

Edited January 6, 2015 by kirchh

[kirchh]

Here's an example usage of "vest pocket" and "watch pocket" from 1920:

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/watch_pocket.png

 

--Daniel

Edited January 6, 2015 by kirchh

[kirchh]

Definition of "watch pocket" from Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of WATCH POCKET

: a small pocket just below the front waistband of men's trousers

 

--Daniel