Some Old Sheaffer Pens

[shalitha33]

Four old Sheaffer pens.

 

Pen with the turn hand is marked 8 on the cap.

Pen with the faded patent pending barrel is marked 2M (i think). this one doesnt have any chased patterns on the barrel.

Imprint is fully gone on the pen with the thicker feed. cap is interchangeable between this and the 2M.

White dot pen doesn't have any markings at the end of the barrel.

 

barrels are all badly faded and also the imprints . White dot flat top also had a hand icon on the cap that seems to have been ground out. traces of it is slightly visible there. 2 pens have the narrow feed. caps are not interchangeable between the two marked" patent pending".

 

 

 

Unfortunately I don't know much about these pens or how old they are.

[Roger W.]

In the first picture the bottom two are circa 1915. The 8 is a nice large pen but, was not in Sheaffer's first catalog as the largest pen in that was a 6. The other hard rubber is post 1917. The black and pearl is circa 1928 and never had a hand on the cap - it just has some strange abrasion.

 

Roger W.

[shalitha33]

Thank you Roger W for all the information. I think i am mistaken about the number 8 , sorry. Once zoomed up its starting to look more like an old style 3 which is starting to make more sense (looking at it the wrong way around was also not helping when i looked at it first). Pen that has this cap has a number 2 nib on it. cap is a bit smaller than that of the 2M.

 

Thanks again for pointing me at the direction of the old catalogs. going through them now https://archive.org/details/466SheafferCatalogOfDeskSets1970s39Pages_201410 has a fairly sizable lot.

 

Thanks again for the info

 

[FredRydr]

Is the word above the hand "RETURN"? The hand resembles the classic hand for "Return to Sender" used by the old USPO. Does the mark on the black and pearl cap resemble the hand on the hard rubber cap? Do you know if these pens come from the same source? Those marks are intriguing. (e.g., A local postmaster with a sense of humor has his pens marked in such fashion.)

[jaytaylor]

Snap. This one also has a 3 stamped at the cap top and a No.2 nib.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by jaytaylor

[Roger W.]

Is the word above the hand "RETURN"? The hand resembles the classic hand for "Return to Sender" used by the old USPO. Does the mark on the black and pearl cap resemble the hand on the hard rubber cap? Do you know if these pens come from the same source? Those marks are intriguing. (e.g., A local postmaster with a sense of humor has his pens marked in such fashion.)

It simply says "TURN" as in turn this direction. A lot of pens at the time had slip caps though, Boston had been making threaded caps since 1904 so they weren't new just not prevalent.

 

Roger W.

[FredRydr]

It simply says "TURN" as in turn this direction. A lot of pens at the time had slip caps though, Boston had been making threaded caps since 1904 so they weren't new just not prevalent.

 

Roger W.

 

Oh! Thank you for that explanation. I'd never seen that mark until this thread.

[jaytaylor]

A couple more I once had the pleasure of owning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stephen_schachter]

Why are some early Sheaffer pens of the same number different sizes? As an example with 2 pens I have, a No. 5 with the 1912 self filling imprint is substantially larger than a No. 5 with a later block imprint. The former nib is also larger than the latter. Is this consistent based on period? Or something else?

[stephen_schachter]

I am really trying to wrap my pea-brain around the range of early Sheaffer pens. My latest problem is trying to understand the 6 size pen. The Pen Sac Company, in their catalog, says that the 5 size and 6 size pen have the same diameter and length. Is this true? Is there a pen, the same size as a 5, with a 6 on the bottom of the barrel, with a 6 nib? Can someone help me understand what's happening here? Roger? Thanks.

[FredRydr]

Why are some early Sheaffer pens of the same number different sizes?...

 

I don't know my early Sheaffers, but this numbering scenario happened with Conklin, too. For example, a No. 4 crescent-filler from 1904 has half the girth of a crescent-filler made just a few years later sporting a No. 4 nib that's twice the size! I learned this when I was looking for Conklin parts to complete a No. 4 pen from that decade.

[PAKMAN]

Sizing and numbering conventions on vintage pens have always seemed out of whack to me. That said, thanks for the great pictures!