Pelikan nibs by Montblanc

[tacitus]

Thank you stoen

“magnum” pen is convincing.

 

What I still wonder is that some Pelikan 14 KARAT 585 nibs have nib size specification (F or N?) on them like yours. According to Green book and Pelikan-collectibles (based on Green book), from August 30, 1935 on, nib size specification had been no longer inscribed on the nib, but on the feed or knob unit. In Green book, when "585" inscription was introduced is not mentioned.

 

If this change had been "strictly" applied, your nib may dated back to 1935. is that possible?

 

[stoen]

I have no N nib @tacitus, two other FPN members do. So I can only guess does this letter relate to nib grade or to something else?

As for the F nib, it is a bit unlikely that it is made earlier than 1937 because it came with a four-chick logo cap top 100. I wouldn’t really take it as a proof that Pelikan mass-produced “585” nibs earlier than they declared?

[tacitus]

Thank you stoen😃

[Croma]

Hello:

 

Hello:
According to the sources I consulted, this is a Pelikan nib made by Montblanc. This nib was mounted on the first Pelikan 100 unts and its distinctive feature is the heart-shaped hole.
Best regards.

 

 

[stoen]

Hello, Everybody,

please pardon my having forgotten to include one of the most important references IMHO, the original 1928 technical draft for the first Pelikan nib, as scanned from the Page 13 of the Pelikan Schreibgeräte a.k.a. “The Green Book” (2004 edition). The measures are in millimeters. Hope the authors won’t mind my posting it here.

🙂

 

There has been a hint, implying that the first Pelikan nibs could have possibly been made from the MB4 blanks. If someone has a technical draft for that nib, it would be nice to post and compare.

Thanks in advance.

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by stoen
measurment units

[OMASsimo]

Thank you for sharing this technical drawing. It actually shows how complex the geometry of a fountain pen nib is or rather was. The most intriguing feature for me is that the body of the nib is very thin and then gets thicker towards the tip. I think that that’s the reason for the wonderful flexibility these vintage nibs provide. Many nibs of that era were designed like that.

[stoen]

Here are some new findings in my individual research, concerning the nib dating between 1930 and 1935. I either own the pens photographed, or have thoroughly inspcted them, part for part. All the nibs are built-in, no scrap-market loose nibs are considered here.

 

A 2nd generation nib, first with the round air hole (1930): the original geometry and script embossing can be clearly seen, only the 1929-hearthole is gone. Please observe the bakelite body:

(Fig.1)

 

Here’s another nib almost identical in geometry, only screwed into an early ebonite section of the third generation (1931-32). Please observe the rather narrow shoulders and long slit, slightly reminding of nibs found in safety pens:

(Fig.2)

 

Therefore it can be concluded that the nibs for the first three “generations” of Pelikan 100 were made by the same technical specification (except for the hearthole disappearance and minor changes in the embossing in the 1931 nib), and not unlikely made by the same manufacturer, possibly Montblanc.

 

=======

 

Two other very early (pre-1934) nibs share the same geometry, yet somewhat different embossing. The sought after “windrose nib”:

(Fig.3)

sharing the ball-like embossing style with the first nib in this post (Nib grade B imprinted), and another “narrow shouldered” nib sharing the diagonal style embossing with the second nib in this post:

(Fig.4)

========

 

Next in the timeline that I could reconstruct come two nibs with slightly broader shoulders, both installed in pens with “straight” sections and four-hole cap tube closing systems. The embossing is much alike the 1930 nib, with the difference of word “KARAT” (same, slightly larger capital K) being put into quotes:

(Fig.5)

(Fig.6)

Assuming they are factory installed to those pens, which I don’t have reasons to doubt (since other parts are original and matching), these nibs can be dated between mid 1931 and 1933. Manufacturer is unknown.

 

========
 

Two other nib types are worth extra consideration. The straight embossing nib, found in a pen that could be dated to as early late 1933 (by that time the engineering and design of the model 100 have “settled” to the familiar shape and function - except for some material changes) up to 1935:

(Fig.7)

The striped embossing nib, found in a post-1934 pen could date it to 1935, since it is the same type embossing and almost the same geometry as found in the “Magnum”, which was a one-shot production series, made only in 1935:

(Fig.8)

=======
 

As of late 1936, Pelikan started its in-house nib production. Millesimal fineness number was introduced in early 1937. So one can pretty certainly determine the nibs carrying that sign to be in-house forged.

 

Last, but not least, I also saw few “transitional” nibs, on which the 585 sign was added below, in the following way:

 

Pelikan

  •14•
KARAT

  585

 

This is as far as I got. I have also consulted the reference readings, such as the Pelikan Schreibgeräte book, Pelikan collectibles site, and the Dating Pelikan fountain pen thread within this forum.

======
If you have other relevant findings, please feel free to join the thread.

🙂

[stoen]

Addendum to the previous post:

- I’ve come across some conflicting information about in-house nib production start:

(1) late 1934 / 35

or

(2) 1936

 

If (1) is true, than the nib in Fig.8 of my previous post could already be an in-house made nib.

 

======
 

 

This Pelikan 100 nib could be an early “millesimal fineness” nib (1937), although I could also find different types of embossing can in some pre-war 1xx pens.

 

Also, this type of “thin” embossing can be found in some post-war “retro-fit” 14k nibs, as production on the pen #100 stopped in 1944 (during the “CN” era) and never resumed after the war. 

 

 

[stoen]

Addendum 2:

 

Another very interesting narrow shoulder nib has recently “surfaced”. Judging from the pen it belongs to, it can probably be dated to as early as mid 1933, as late as 1934, possibly pre-dating the ones in (Fig.7) and (Fig.8) of the previous post:

It may therefore count among the later series of “outsourced” nibs. It  is also possible that several contractors could have simultanously manufactured nibs for Pelikan during that period.

[WestLothian]

 

Marked: PeliKan 14 KARAT EF 

 

This may fit into the timeline at 1932-35 ?

[stoen]

2 hours ago, WestLothian said:

This may fit into the timeline at 1932-35 ?

The nib is a pre-1935 nib, because of the engraved nib size.

 

According to the geometry, the nib seems pre-1934.

 

Assuming there is no 2nd hole inside the unit, and the nib is belonging to the original pen, the section dates it to post 1933.

 

Therefore the nib could be from late 1933, early 1934.

 

Hope this can help.

[WestLothian]

Thanks Stoen. It is probably not an original nib for that section. The pen also has a later transparent green piston screw and has the one-piece elastomer seal. I don't want to disturb the collar to check for the second hole at the moment. The nib is a nice responsive flex, springy but not as soft as 1910 Waterman's.

 

 

 

I took this photo during maintenance in July 2013 - time flies!

[stoen]

Maybe you can turn it other way around? The later plastic parts may have been results of original pen subsequent later repairs.

 

What matters more than the piston, is the barrel design and material, if original.

 

Still the nib can’t be dated much later than late 1934. The earliest manufacturing date (according to the italic script and my findings) is also probably not earlier than 1933.

 

Hope this can help.

[stoen]

Here are few Pelikan 100 nibs belonging to the “outsourced” period. According to common geometry (narrow shoulders, long slit) and embossing, they date among the earliest ones (1930-1934).

Other pen parts (type of section, cap tube and cap top) narrow the dating between April 1931 and May 1933, possibly slightly earlier.

 

The rightmost one seems to be of particular interest. It appears similar to the one posted by  @WestLothian (letter size, shape, script and embossing common to those found in a hearthole nib).  Except for the hearthole, it seems to share features and details with the original nib version, made by Montblanc. 

 

The other two nibs share characteristical diagonal stripe-shading.

 

All the three nibs bear size/grade imprints. Although, according to the Pelikan Schreibgeräte book and Pelikan Collectibles site, the omission of the nib grade imprints appears later than start of in-house production. From the variety in geometry and imprint details it seems unlikely that the transition to the in-house nibs and size marks on feeds was sharp (late 34/early 35). Batches of “outsourced” nibs must still have existed in their factory stock until as late as 1935. Last, but not least, several assembly factories have existed beside Hannover (Vienna, Gdansk, Milan, Sofia, Zagreb…) which all may have had nibs in stock.

 

As @tacitus also pointed in his previous post, size imprints may have been occasionally nib-stamped until as late as 1937.

 

Neither of these three nibs has a second hole on the inside part.

 

Please observe variation in letter size and row spacing:

 

 

 

Here’s a loose hearthole nib for comparison:

 

[Christopher Godfrey]

Aha, stoen!  In that photo of the three nibs for comparison, you do not mention what appears, to my eyes, to be of interest -- the left-hand nib seems to have had a second breather hole drilled through it impingeing on the larger one...(of slightly smaller diameter)  Any ideas?  Perhaps someone was seeking more flexibility?

[stoen]

14 hours ago, Christopher Godfrey said:

you do not mention what appears, to my eyes, to be of interest -- the left-hand nib seems to have had a second breather hole drilled through it impingeing on the larger one...

Thank you for your comment. The hole damage is indeed very visible, but is kind of irrelevant to the topic which is titled “Pelikan nibs by Montblanc”, AFAIK. It has to do neither with Pelikan nibs nor with Montblanc nibs, but possibly with a sloppy and miserable homebrew intervention attempt of an unskilled, poorly tooled user or repair person wannabe, for who knows what kind of “motive”. If I had the same nib in a better condition, of course I would have posted it instead. They are very rare.

If you find the nib abuse topic worth discussing and would like to go on discussing it, would you please be so kind to either open a new thread or perhaps send me a PM. I’ll refrain from furtherly discussing it herewith.

Thanks for being kind to this thread and its readers by keeping it lean and on topic.

🙂