Dating Pelikan fountain Pen

[stoen]

Discussion:

Pelikan 450 Pencil

 

On 1/7/2023 at 11:08 AM, tacitus said:

Pelikan 450

Matching pencil of model 400.

 

In practice, the model has been produced in three variations:

Fig1. (top to bottom):

(1)Thick model w/o built-in eraser

(2)Thick model w. built-in eraser

(3)Thin model w. built-in eraser

 

The eraser unit could be pulled out from the pencil top (detailed take-apart view):

Fig2. (top to bottom):

(1)Thick model w/o built-in eraser

(2)Thick model w. built-in eraser

(3)Thin model w. built-in eraser

 

The top parts are not interchangeable among any of the three models.

 

Most of the (1) and (2) models had “GÜNTHER WAGNER PELIKAN 450 GERMANY” engraving on the barrel top.

 

All of the (3) models had “PELIKAN 450 GERMANY” engraving on the middle metal ring, and no engraving on the barrel.

 

Interesting about the thick model w. built-in eraser is that the eraser unit was screwed into a brass jacket, which was friction-fit from the top of the pencil.

 

Although this is not a fountain pen, but a supplementary product sold in sets with 400 series fountain pens, knowing its timeline could be helpful. I haven’t found unequivocal reference for so far.

 

According to my individual research, the timeline goes as follows, although, relying on personalized (signed) pen/pencil sets, one can conclude they’ve also co-existed in the market for some time.

 

1. Thick model w/o built-in eraser (1950-?)

2. Thick model w. built-in eraser (?-1958)

3. Thin model w. built-in eraser (1958-196?)

[some more precise official dates provided in a following post, by @joss]

 

Any additional relevant information would be helpful.

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by stoen
reference to more precise dates

[OCArt]

@Stoen.  Thank you for this useful post! 

[joss]

3 hours ago, stoen said:

Although this is not a fountain pen, but a supplementary product sold in sets with 400 series fountain pens, knowing its timeline could be helpful. I haven’t found unequivocal reference for so far.

According to my individual research, the timeline goes as follows, although, relying on personalized (signed) pen/pencil sets, one can conclude they’ve also co-existed in the market for some time.

 

1. Thick model w/o built-in eraser (1950-?)

2. Thick model w. built-in eraser (?-1958)

3. Thin model w. built-in eraser (1958-196?)

 

Any additional relevant information would be helpful.

 

These dates are from the Dittmer & Lehmann Pelikan book (2nd edition, aka 'green book'):

 

1. Thick model w/o built-in eraser and broad clip: introduced May 1950 (D&L, page 65 and 172)

2. Thick model w. built-in eraser and slender clip: introduced late 1955 (D&L, page 75 and 172)

3. Thin model w. built-in eraser and narrow clip: introduced early 1960, discontinued April 1963 (D&L, page 80 and 172)

[stoen]

8 hours ago, joss said:

1. Thick model w/o built-in eraser and broad clip: introduced May 1950 (D&L, page 65 and 172)

2. Thick model w. built-in eraser and slender clip: introduced late 1955 (D&L, page 75 and 172)

3. Thin model w. built-in eraser and narrow clip: introduced early 1960, discontinued April 1963 (D&L, page 80 and 172)

Thank you for referencing official dates, @joss.

According to (D&L) description and reference (slender clip), the introduction of (2) would therefore likely coincide with 400N (Dec.1955-Apr.1956) - I have no proof of this, while its lifetime encompasses much of the 400NN lifetime as well.

 

I have found signed (personalized) pen/pencil sets of 400 and (2) (-> 1955), as well as 400NN and (1) (1956->).

 

I haven’t found personalized sets of (2) and 400NN that can be certainly dated beyond the 400NN with “locking cap” (1958/9). In my finding, this is somewhat inconclusive, since the 1957 and 1960 400NN look and behave quite the same.

 

I have also found (2) with the thick clip as well (inividual, and in set w. 400).

 

Based on the (D&L) official dates and individual research, one could therefore educatedly guess that (1) and (2) might have coexisted for some time, and conclude that (2) can legitimately be found in set with any of the 400 (later)/400N/400NN.

 

 

 

[tacitus]

Pelikan 400 (ca.1952) 

 

In August, 1950, model 400 reverted to the traditional screw-in fit nib unit (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). The socket was equipped with two notches to apply the special wrench, with which the nib unit was removable easily and safely from the grip section⁽¹⁾. The feed and piston seal were also improved over time. Around 1952 (or 1953), the feed was modified. The late type feed (I call the redesigned feed so) had an ink/air channel⁽²⁾, an air channel on the ventral side, and a circumferential groove at the tail⁽³⁾. Thus, the feed now had technically upgraded ink/air channels, contributing to stable ink flow, ink availability, and leak-proof. Late type feeds were passed on to model 400N and 400NN (Pelikan’s Perch). As for the piston seal, black elastomer seal had been used for model 100N and 400 until November 26, 1952 (Pelikan-collectibles). Presumably, disk-shaped transparent nylon seal replaced black elastomer seal in November 1952, but this seal seemed to be not robust enough in some cases. Soon (November 27, 1953), wide transparent nylon seal was introduced (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). This new seal was sufficiently robust and reliable⁽⁴⁾, and used for the subsequent models.

Subsequent events regarding model 400 can be summarized as follows. 

• From June 15, 1951, colored cap tops were made available (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). The colored cap helped to know the color of ink used (even unusual colors such as purple and white were known) (Pelikan-collectibles).
• From April 1952, the nib specification was engraved on the nib (Pelikan-collectibles)⁽⁵⁾. 
• From mid-1954, the cap ring was engraved with "Pelikan 400" or "Pelikan 400 Germany" (Pelikan’s Perch)⁽⁵⁾.
• In December 1954, so-called fir tree nib with stylized pelican logo was introduced (Pelikan Schreibgeräte)⁽⁵⁾.
• On May 23, 1955, model 455, the matching ballpoint pen was introduced⁽⁶⁾.

 

As for (semi)luxury models, model 600 with 14 carat gold cap and turning knob was introduced on September 18, 1950. Model 700 in fully 14 carat gold was introduced in February 1951. Model 600 was similar in appearance to model 500, but could be distinguished from model 500 by its hallmark (585). However, in response to requests/complaints from the consumers, the cap of model 600 was engraved with "Günther Wagner Germany 14c-585 Pelikan" from June 20, 1952. Furthermore, model 600 was fitted with gold cap top from September 23, 1952. Accordingly, matching pencil 650 was fitted with gold push button (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). Model 520 in fully rolled gold was introduced on June 13, 1955 (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). Model 700 was similar in appearance to model 520, but could be distinguished from model 520 by hallmarks (14c-585) in every part.

 

In 1956, model 400 was discontinued, and replaced by model 400N⁽⁷⁾. Although it was only in production for 6 years, model 400 achieved remarkable progress, both technically and aesthetically.

Note;⁽¹⁾The old plier for model 100(N) could damage the nib. However, the new wrench raised patent disputes with Montblanc (Pelikan Schreibgeräte, Pelikan’s Perch), as Montblanc already had a similar socket wrench, and filed a patent protection. At the same time, Günter Wagner was also filing a complaint against Montblanc for patent infringement as for the telescopic mechanism and screw-in nib unit in Monte Rosa. Finally, Günter Wagner and Montblanc came to an agreement that Montblanc would allow Günter Wagner to use the new wrench without paying royalties to Montblanc, and that Günter Wagner in turn would drop patent infringement complaint against Montblanc. So, the patents concerning these mechanisms could be used by both companies without patent infringement.

⁽²⁾Main ink/air channel consisted of one wide groove in the center and two side grooves. Ink goes out through two side grooves, while air comes from a nib vent hole through two side grooves into ink reservoir.    

⁽³⁾This groove seemed to guide ink from the lowest part of the reservoir to the dorsal ink channel when the ink level was low.
⁽⁴⁾Therefore, we often see vintage Pelikan pens with old seals replaced with this type of seal.

⁽⁵⁾You can tell if a model 400 was made before 1952 or after 1954 by looking at the cap and nib. My pen may be dated from 1952 to mid-1954.  

⁽⁶⁾Model 455, along with model 355 (matching model 140), was Pelikan's first ballpoint pen. Günter Wagner was one of the last companies to introduced ballpoint pens. Initially, the company called it "roller", not a ballpoint pen (Pelikan Schreibgeräte).

⁽⁷⁾In fact, model 400N was introduced in December 1955. The August 1956 retail brochure listed all three models (model 400, 400N, 400NN) (Pelikan Schreibgeräte).

 

Tubular nib unit removal wrench for model 400

 

 

 

Feeds of model 400

The first type feed (1950)

The feed had a slit at its backside. By courtesy of Christof Zollinger.

 

Early type feed (ca.1951)

 

Late type feeds (ca.1952-1956)

Main ink/air channel (white arrow), ventral air channel (white arrow head), and circumferential groove (red arrow). Feed (2) seems to be introduced later than feed (1).

 

 

Piston seals of model 400

Black elastomer seal (1) had been used for model 100N from early 1940's, and used for early model 400 (1950-1952). Discoid transparent nylon seal (2) was used for model 400 for a short time (1952-1953). Wide transparent nylon seal (3) was used for late model 400 (1953-1956), and  passed on to model 400N and 400NN.

 

Pelikan 400 (ca.1951)

My collection.

Pelikan 400 and warranty/user instruction in the box.

 

 

The nib of Pelikan 400 with "F" engravement.

 

The nib unit of Pelikan 400. Late type (2) feed.

 

The turning knob with nib specification.

 

Clips of 100N (ca.1949)(left) and 400 (ca.1952)(right). 

 

400 box (late version?).

 

Pelikan 400 (ca.1954)

So-called "fir tree" nib. The early fir tree nibs were characterized by diagonal lines merging into the central slit.

 

Cap ring engraved with "Pelikan 400". Barrel engraved with "Günter Wagner".

 

Pelikan 520 Italian jeweler version (ca.1955)

 

Pelikan 455 (ca.1955)

[christof]

5 hours ago, tacitus said:

....

 

 

Piston seals of model 400

Black elastomer seal (1) had been used for model 100N from early 1940's, and used for early model 400 (1950-1952). Discoid transparent nylon seal (2) was used for model 400 for a short time (1952-1953). Wide transparent nylon seal (3) was used for late model 400 (1953-1956), and  passed on to model 400N and 400NN.

 

....

 

 

 

 

In fact, I have never seen a Pelikan 400 with a black Piston seal. In all the years not, not even the models with friction fit nib units....

 

 

[Tashi_Tsering]

I am sorry, may be my question is not correct for this tread.
 

I have Pelikan 500: tortoise brown-stripe, rolled gold cap with vertical stripes and piston knob, old 14k nib (no Pelikan logo and no width mark). On the barrel I have imprint: M (nib width), export, Gunther Wagner, Pelikan. I never see before export on Pelikan’s pens. Can you please tell me, is it common or not, for which country was this pen made. And, may be, year of production. 

[tacitus]

1 hour ago, christof said:

In fact, I have never seen a Pelikan 400 with a black Piston seal. In all the years not, not even the models with friction fit nib units....

 

Thank you for your comment, @christof☺️.

 

If so, the discoid transparent nylon seal seemed to be introduced at the same time when model 400 was introduced in 1950". I will correct the description.

 

Please let me know again if you have any corrections.

[tacitus]

1 hour ago, christof said:

In fact, I have never seen a Pelikan 400 with a black Piston seal. In all the years not, not even the models with friction fit nib units....

Thank you for your comment, @christof.

 

If so, the discoid transparent nylon seal (2) seemd to be introduced at the same time when model 400 was introduced in 1950". I will correct it.

 

Please let me know again if you have any corrections.

[stoen]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:10 AM, tacitus said:

If so, the discoid transparent nylon seal (2) seemed to be introduced at the same time when model 400 was introduced in 1950". I will correct it.

The fact of a pen variation not having been seen by a worldwide respected expert (i.e. @christof )  for so far, still does not mean that it never existed. In one of my previous posts I’ve tried to contribute to the thread with evidence that there was a 400 with black elastomer gasket (or seal, if you prefer to call it so). I’ve had such a pen in my hands.

 

One of the reasons that very few such gaskets (seals) still exist in pens is the fact that the black elastomer gaskets (1) were shrinkage prone and used to fail with aggressive  IG inks - they mostly got service-replaced with transparent (2) or (3) gaskets, which were more reliable: both in 400 and 100N pens. I have written of this in a previous post.

 

Hope this can help.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by stoen
more elaborate issue description

[stoen]

Discussion:

Dating nib naming conventions change on 400 piston knobs:

 

It is evident that at some point the nib naming convention must have been re-conceived. It is easiest to see on pens with oblique nibs:

 

Fig1. Early (friction fit nib unit) 400 w. O7 nib.

 

Fig2. Two somewhat later 400 pens (possibly 1950/51 and before April 1952) with O8 and OF nibs.

 

More on Pelikan nib charts and naming conventions can be found in this thread:

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/365910-chart-of-vintage-pelikan-nib-choices/

 

I haven’t found the official reference to exact dates when those conventions have been changed. If someone could contribute with exact dates, I believe it could help further refining the Pelikan Fountain Pen dating procedure.

 

[tacitus]

27 minutes ago, stoen said:

The fact of a pen not having been seen by a respected expert ( @christof )  for so far still does not mean that it never existed. In one of my previous posts I’ve tried to contribute the thread with evidence that there was a 400 with black elastomer gasket (or seal if you prefer to call it so). I’ve had such a pen in my hands.

 

Hope this can help.

 

Thank you, @stoen.

I do not have an early 400s, so I am relying on information from anyone who has one.

 

Anyway, I leave the description unedited til further information is available. 

[christof]

41 minutes ago, tacitus said:

Thank you for your comment, @christof.

 

If so, the discoid transparent nylon seal (2) seemd to be introduced at the same time when model 400 was introduced in 1950". I will correct it.

 

...

 

Yes, this is what I think and what I observed during the last 20 years on several hundred Pelikan 400. But in fact, I cannot prove my assertion. I still believe that it is correct

[tacitus]

3 hours ago, Tashi_Tsering said:

I am sorry, may be my question is not correct for this tread.
 

I have Pelikan 500: tortoise brown-stripe, rolled gold cap with vertical stripes and piston knob, old 14k nib (no Pelikan logo and no width mark). On the barrel I have imprint: M (nib width), export, Gunther Wagner, Pelikan. I never see before export on Pelikan’s pens. Can you please tell me, is it common or not, for which country was this pen made. And, may be, year of production.

 

Hello, @Tashi_Tsering.

 

According to Peliklan-collctibles, "the metal nib of the model 400 was identical to the nib of the model 100N and did not carry a nib width designation until April 1952". So, your pen may be produced before April, 1952. If the nib unit can be removed, further dating may be possible. But removing nib unit may damage it. So, unless done by a professional, it is not recommended.

 

There seem to exist many model 400 series with EXPORT engravement, and not rare. Unless the pen have 18 carat nib, or "Pelican" engravement, it does not seem to be for a specific country.

 

Pelikan 400 Gunter Wagner Green/Black striped Export Fountain Pen 1950's

Rare Pelikan 500 black for EXPORT

 

As for EXPORT mark, some prewar 100 also had EXPORT mark on the barrel.

 

 

[stoen]

21 hours ago, tacitus said:

According to Peliklan-collctibles, "the metal nib of the model 400 was identical to the nib of the model 100N and did not carry a nib width designation until April 1952".

Thank you for pointing at the relevance of the coexistence period of 400 and 100N (1950-approx. 54), @tacitus . The 400 lived for no more than about a year beyond 100N. Because of two identical internal dimensions, some of the inner parts were interchangeable and therefore used in both models. So, dating knowledge from one model could cast some additional light on dating the other.

This information also helps determine the period while the nib type was imprinted on the piston knob (1950-Apr.1952), most likely of both models, since nibs were quite the same.

 

Another example: there was a period that feeds of 400 and 100N have been interchangeable (Aug. 1950 - 1953?):

Fig.1 (L to R):

-100N re-designed ebonite collar (bushing)

-Four-fin feed (Aug. 1950 -> ) type

-400 ebonite collar (bushing)

 

According to “Pelikan’s Perch”, the “colorless seal” or “discoid transparent seal” was introduced later than 1950:

https://thepelikansperch.com/2019/03/05/pelikan-400-fountain-pen/

which also corresponds to my findings in some Pelikan 400 pens and more 100N pens of that period.

NB.

Post-war Pelikan 100N and 400 have exactly the same barrel bore and pistons are interchangeable (unlike pre-war 100N, which have approx. 0.3mm wider barrel bore). In fact, identical piston seals have been used in both of the models during their co-existence.

[Tashi_Tsering]

4 hours ago, tacitus said:

…

 

 

Thank you very much!

[Rick Propas]

Christof has asked me to weigh in on this discussion. For the last twenty five years I have collected Pelikans and for the last twenty two years I have dealt in them. Never have I seen a black elastomer seal in a 400 and I have had literally hundreds pass through my hands.

 

As far as the existence of an example with an elastomer seal, sure, it could happen. Give me five minutes and I could create one.

 

But did they ever come from the factory with one? It's conceivable. I have a celluloid shaft for a 400. That should not exist. Likewise, there could have been a batch of elastomer seals in a corner of the factory that got installed in 400s. But were they common or to specification? I seriously doubt it.

 

[stoen]

12 hours ago, Rick Propas said:

But did they ever come from the factory with one? It's conceivable. I have a celluloid shaft for a 400. That should not exist. Likewise, there could have been a batch of elastomer seals in a corner of the factory that got installed in 400s. But were they common or to specification? I seriously doubt it.

Thanks for joining the discussion @rickpropas. I find your judgement very realistic and known to be backed with remarkable knowledge, market experience and openness to evidence.

 

My point was about that even if elastomer seals were “to specification” (which I haven’t insisted that they were) for a certain period (perhaps because there might not have been better solutions back then), they frequently failed and most of them got routinely service-shop replaced with same ones or with better ones, as soon as they became available. This is what I learned from people who did Pelikan authorized service jobs back in the sixties, or from those who have learned from them. Therefore the type of seal (gasket) is most likely an inconclusive part of evidence in the dating “cookbook” for a 400. 

 

Nevertheess, it would be good to better understand the historical context:

 

(1) when the thin nylon seals were introduced? According to Pelikan’s Perch and Pelikan Collectibles it was November 27 1953, not 1950. If so, what kind of seals were installed into 400 pens before that date?

 

https://thepelikansperch.com/2019/03/05/pelikan-400-fountain-pen/

 

https://www.pelikan-collectibles.com/en/Pelikan/Models/Revised-Piston-Fillers/400-Basis/index.html

 

(2) when the thick nylon seals were introduced?

 

(3) when the elastomer seals were discontinued?

 

Last but not least, why would someone “assemble” a failure prone pen with elastomer seal “in five minutes”,  just to show it’s possible? It woud be below the level of this discussion and this thread, IMHO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tacitus]

Thank you Christof, @stoen,and Rick for your comment.

 

According to the timeline of the 100N in the Pelikan-Collectibles, the black seal was introduced in 1942 and discontinued in November 1952. The wide transparent seal was introduced in November 1953. The following is my guess. Since the seals were interchangeable between the 100N and the 400, the situation would have been the same for the 400. So, if the description in Pelikan-Collectibles is correct, what kind of seal was used from November 1952 to November 1953? It would be a discoid transparent seal. Then, when the discoid transparent seal was introduced? Just because the black seal was discontinued in November 1952 does not necessarily mean that the discoid transparent seal was introduced at that time. Referring to Rick and Christophe's observation that they have never seen 400 with the black seals, the discoid transparent seal may have been introduced earlier. Perhaps in 1950? Since Gunter Wagner made new cap, friction fit nib unit, friction fit filling system for the model, it is no wonder the company developed a new seal for this model. Black seal coexisted with the discoid transparent seal, and may have been used for some batch of early 400 (because of low yield of new seal?), but gradually replaced with a discoid transparent seal.

 

I feel you are all giving correct opinions based on your own experience and knowledge. Again, this is just my guess without any primary sources.

 

[christof]

13 hours ago, Rick Propas said:

Christof has asked me to weigh in on this discussion. For the last twenty five years I have collected Pelikans and for the last twenty two years I have dealt in them. Never have I seen a black elastomer seal in a 400 and I have had literally hundreds pass through my hands.

 

As far as the existence of an example with an elastomer seal, sure, it could happen. Give me five minutes and I could create one.

 

But did they ever come from the factory with one? It's conceivable. I have a celluloid shaft for a 400. That should not exist. Likewise, there could have been a batch of elastomer seals in a corner of the factory that got installed in 400s. But were they common or to specification? I seriously doubt it.

 

 

Thank you for sharing your experience with us Rick. In cases like this where verified facts are lacking this one is invaluable. This is also why I interviewed Tom Westerich, and his observations are in line with yours.

 

Now, I also remember having discussed this issue with Dominic Rothemel once before, some years ago, and I think we came to the conclusion that we have to live with some uncertainty on some issues.

 

  

45 minutes ago, tacitus said:

...the discoid transparent seal may have been introduced earlier. Perhaps in 1950? Since Gunter Wagner made new cap, friction fit nib unit, friction fit filling system for the model, it is no wonder the company developed a new seal for this model.

 

 

Yes, this is what I suspect.

 

So I think I have said everything I can contribute to this topic and I will withdraw from the discussion.

However, my sincere thanks to the thread starter and all others who are trying to gather facts.