Dating Pelikan fountain Pen

[tacitus]

Thank you @christof.

Please post anytime you like and help us.

 

[tacitus]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:04 PM, stoen said:

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.

 

 

Looking at the catalog as of June 1951 (Pelikan Preisliste 70B/8), we can see that new descriptive method was already taken. So, changeover might be sometime in early 1951.

[tacitus]

I found a picture in Pelikan Schreibgeräte (Green book) that depicted all types of 100/100seals of all generations, in which the disk-shaped transparent nylon seal was presented as "100N plastic seal circa 1950".

 

Below are my guesses based on several sources.

 

Thus, disk-shaped transparent nylon seal was probably newly developed for 400 (and 100N) and introduced in 1950. As for black elastomer seal, this seal was still in production for 100N when 400 was introduced  (Pelikan-collectibles). There are several reports of this seal being installed on 400 (Pelikan's Perch). It is assumed that this seal was used for (or diverted to) 400, although it is not known how much or how long. These two seals however seemed to be not robust enough. So, wide transparent nylon seal was introduced on November 27, 1953 (Green book) to replace disk-shaped transparent nylon seal. This new seal was sufficiently robust and reliable, and used for the subsequent models.

 

As the original post cannot be edited anymore, please refer to my website for backup for the edited version.

 

Pelikan 400 with black elastomer seal (ca.1951-52)

By courtesy of @stoen.

 

"EF" on both the turning knob and barrel😲.

 

 

 

 

[tacitus]

Pelikan 400 (ca.1952)

 

I have one information to be updated.

As for "late type feeds", I noticed a transvers slit that crosses the main ink/air channel of feed (1).

 

The slit seems to serve as side air intakes. 

 

 

Feed (2) rather than feed (1) seemed to dominate in the following models.

 

This feed may be a testament to Günter Wagner's trial and error in search for a better feed.

 

Please compare with a modern feed with a more complicated air channel.

 

 

The nib unit of Pelikan M450

[stoen]

Pelikan 400

-barrel imprint findings

 

I have encountered 400s with three types of barrel imprint and have examples in my collection:

 

[1] PELIKAN GÜNTHER WAGNER PELIKAN

[2] <Nib Size> GÜNTHER WAGNER PELIKAN
[3] GÜNTHER WAGNER GERMANY PELIKAN 400

 

There are different imprints for EXPORT models, but I have neither such pens nor records. Any relevant input would be very welcome.

 

My research indicates that [1] is the earliest (in 1950 friction fit and 1950/1 pens) - “old” nib size protocol (O7, O8 etc.) on the knob), early feed type

 

[2] follows (1951/2 pens); later feed type (1). Both, numbered and descriptive nib sizes can be found on the barrel. Nib size also found on the turning knob. I have only one such pen in my collection (the brown EF/EF @tacitus has posted pictures of in a previous post) but I’ve seen few more, yet too few to make definite conclusions that a possible rule to imprint nib sizes on both, barrel and piston knob for the period existed.

 

[3] (1952/3 pens -> ); later feed type (2) mostly; “descriptive” nib size knob imprint (OF, OM etc.) if any. With the introduction of Pelikan 300 and Pelikan 140, GW most likely started imprinting the pen model number on the barrel, in order to distinguish among the model production lines (although 300 existed only in green striped and black striped colors AFAIK, while 140 barrel is shorter). My only 400N and some of my 400NNs (probably earlier ones) have such imprint on both barrel and cap ring. I’m not certain about acetate barrel imprints on Pelikan 500/600. I have none of them in my collection, also none at hand. To me it is logical that 500/600 variants of [3] must have existed for the corresponding period.

 

At a certain point GW stopped putting imprints on barrels, at least the acetate ones. @tacitus has made a remark that there were also 400s without barrel imprints. I saw few such pens too, so I guess the barrel imprint phasing out process must have been gradual rather than overnight. GW must have had batches of 400 barrels in stock…

 

As for the turning knob imprints, I believe GW stopped imprinting nib size on the knob around 1954, when they started engraving the size (grind) on the nib itself.

 

This is deduced from evidence and I hope it can help.

 

Information from anyone having more exact data, dates or references is more than welcome.

 

 

[tacitus]

Pelikan 400 (ca.1952)

 

Let me update information on "late type feeds" with @stoen's view and photo.

 

Of the two late type feeds, feed (1) is thought to be produced earlier. According to @stoen, "lateral slit (feed (1) red arrow) served both as additional air intake as well as pressure equalizer, optimizing the ink flow." "Feed  (2) must have obtained similar result with the re-designed back-end. Also, the slanted back end (feed (2) red circle) probably improved performance at low ink levels." "Therefore, feed (2) is logical evolution of (1), backed with enormous market feedback, and also a bit simpler to make."

 

For the subsequent models (400N, 400NN), feed (2) was used with a few exceptions.

 

Nowadays, many modern Pelikan feeds have partially slanted backsides. So, feed (2) may be one of the prototypes of modern Pelikan feed.

 

 

Two "late type feeds" for model 400

By courtesy of @stoen (red circle was added by me).

 

 

 

 

Friction fit nib unit of M400 (ca.1982)

My collection. Partially slanted back side (red circle).

[tacitus]

Pelikan 400

 

I forgot to mention the markings on the back of the clips. They appear to have been introduced for the first time on model 400. As far as I inspected, they are not found on model 100N or earlier models. These markings appear to be the manufactures' marks, as seen on earlier model 100 feeds. They are also found on the subsequent  400N and 400NN.

 

Just FYI☺️.

 

 

 

[tacitus]

Before moving to 400N, I post Pelikan's first ballpoint pen. I think it is worth mentioning here like model 450.

 

Pelikan 455 (ca.1955) - the first Pelikan ballpoint pen

 

On May 23, 1955, model 455 (matching model 400) was introduced. 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). For further information, please see the excellent review by Pelikan’s Perch.

Model 455 was a retractable ballpoint pen. The refill is linked to the push button, and goes in and out with each press of the push button. 

As the tip of the earliest version was proved to be too fragile, it was reinforced by an internal metal tube some time later. But, this measure was not still satisfying enough, the entire barrel was redesigned (Pelikan Schreibgeräte).

In 1959, the push mechanism was redesigned (Pelikan Schreibgeräte) (but no details available to me).

 

Pelikan 455 (ca.1955)

 

Pelikan 455 (ca.1955)

The tip of the earliest version was prone to cracking.

 

Pelikan 455 (ca.195?)
Before the push mechanism was redesigned. My collection.

 

Back side of the clip. The model number "455" and manufacture's mark (Rg) are seen.

 

Internal metal tube to prevent tip cracks (red arrow).

 

Continued...

[tacitus]

Pelikan 455 (ca.1955)

 

Grip section (before and after redesign)

Left; early version, right; the redesigned grip section with metal tube inside the tip.

 

 

 

Push mechanism (before redesign)

 

Apart from the mechanism by which ink comes out of the refill, this section describes how the refill is ejected and retracted with the same push. The terms used are for the descriptive purposes only and are not official (I'm sure there are technical terms, but I don't know them).

1. Pressing the push-button directly pushes the refill holder and refill forward, while the push-button spring also pushes the rotor forward (the push-button doesn't directly contact the rotor). When the rotor hit the guide in the barrel, it is pressed against the guide and rotates 36 degrees counter-clockwise (viewed from the tip) around the refill holder (you'll hear a click). When the push-button is released, the refill holder and refill are locked in the writing position by the rotor and refill spring (you'll hear a click). The ballpoint pen is now ready to write.
2. Pressing the push-button again pushes the rotor against the guide and rotates it 36 degrees counter-clockwise to unlock the refill holder (you'll hear a click). When the push-button is released, the refill holder and refill are pushed back into the barrel by the refill spring (you'll hear a click). The refill is now retracted.

This elaborately designed mechanism allows for easy and reliable operation.

 

According to Pelikan Schreibgeräte, that the ballpoint pen was so late in reaching the market was "explained away" by Günter Wagner as being the result of the company's striving for technical perfection. But, it seems to me that Günter Wagner meant what the company said at least in part.

 

The explosive view of Pelikan 455

My collection.

 

Push-button and push-button spring

The push-button directly pushes the refill holder forward, while the push-button spring also pushes the rotor forward (the push-button doesn't directly contact the rotor), allowing both synchronized and independent movement of both parts.

 

Rotor and refill holder

The rotor (left) has diagonally cut edge and five slots. The refill holder (right) has five "ribs" and a hole to hold the refill. These two parts alternate between two positions . The refill holder only moves back and forth along the guides in the barrel, while the rotor locks and unlocks the refill holder as it rotates around it in addition to the back and forth movement.

 

Guides in the barrel

The slanted edge of the guide (red arrow). The rotor rotates when it is pressed against the guide.

 

 

 

 

Pelikan 455 transparent demonstrator

Captions added by tacitus. The slanted edge of the guide can be seen. You can imagine how the rotor rotates when it is pushed against by the guide. When the push button is pressed, the refill holder moves to the right and the refill is ejected. At the same time, the rotor moves a little bit to the right, hits the guide, and rotates downward. The refill holder is then locked. Pressing the push button again rotates the rotor downward to unlock the refill holder, and the refill and refill holder are pushed back to its original position by the tip spring.

 

 

Push mechanism (after redesign?)

According to the captions, this is authentic Pelikan 455 (transparent demonstrator). However, the mechanism seems to be different from the early one shown above. Presumably, this is the mechanism redesigned in 1959, which seems (the prototype of) the mechanism still in use today (YouTube).

[tacitus]

Pelikan 400N⁽¹⁾ (ca.1956)

 

Model 400N was introduced in December 1955 (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). The suffix "N" (neu: "new") was added to the model name, but the changes were not as big as at the introduction of model 100N. The changes from model 400 seemed to be only in appearance.

 

• Cap*: The cap top was about 0.5 mm smaller in diameter (than model 400)⁽²⁾. The cap tube became about 2 mm longer, and the end on the cap top side was about 1 mm smaller in diameter. The clip became about 2 mm longer and slimmer⁽³⁾. The model number on the cap ring was "PELIKAN 400" (not "400N")⁽¹⁾.
• Nib unit: The nib unit of model 400N seemed to be identical to model 400, so interchangeable with it.
• Body*: The grip section, barrel, piston seal, and ink capacity seemed to be identical to model 400. The barrel had an imprint "GÜNTER WAGNER GERMANY PELIKAN 400". The turning knob became more rounded and about 1.5 mm longer than model 400 (the turning knob of model 400 was more squared off).
• Color: colors of barrel and cap, and their combination were almost same as model 400. For color lineup, please see Pelikan-collectibles and Pelikan’s Perch.
• Dimension*: The diameter was almost same as model 400, but the length was about 2 mm increased (400: 125.8 mm vs. 400N: 127.5 mm). For a more detailed comparison of model 400 and 400N, please see Pelikan’s Perch.

To summarize, model 400N became longer and slightly "streamlined"(although not strictly speaking) compared with model 400.

 

The (semi)luxury models were also lined up almost as complete as those of model 400⁽⁴⁾.

 

The model was in production for only one year, and discontinued in 1956⁽⁵⁾. The model is now one of the rarest of vintage Pelikan pens. 

 

Note;*The measurements and engraving are based on my own pen. Therefore, there may be slight differences with other pens.

⁽¹⁾Contrary to model 100N, the suffix "N" was only used internally, and was never published in any price list. The differentiation by the suffix was only used in spare parts product leaflets and in internal product descriptions (Pelikan Schreibgeräte).

⁽²⁾The crown and clip washer of model 400 are loose when put on model 400N. 

⁽³⁾According to Pen Cluster, some late production had shorter clip like model 400NN. 

⁽⁴⁾Model 600N with 14 carat gold cap and model 700N in full 14 carat gold were present only as samples.

⁽⁵⁾The variety of colored models and luxury models suggest that model 400N series were introduced with sufficient preparation and was not intended to be produced in a short period of time. In fact, Günter Wagner characterized model 400N as "a model with improved shape"(Pelikan Schreibgeräte). Did the change of shape still seem half-baked to the customers at the time? There must have been a reason why a successor model (400NN) had to be launched immediately. The completion of "ideal shape" as imagined by Günter Wagner was carried over to the next model.

 

 

I only have 8 Mb left for pictures. To save space, I'll use albums to upload pictures of my pen.

 

Pelikan 400N export model (ca.1956)

 

”EXPORT PELIKAN 400 GÜNTER WAGNER” on the barrel end.

 

Pelikan 500N (ca.1956)

Deferent form model 500, the turning knob was not rolled gold. The barrel had "500" engraving.

To be Continued...

 

 

[stoen]

Discussion:

400N Cap Type Controversy

 

As @tacitus pointed in the previous post, barrels and cap rings bore  “PELIKAN 400” imprints, neither 400N nor 400NN. Consequently, those pens didn’t seem to have been marketed as “400”, “400N” and “400NN”, but always “400”. This distinction most likely existed for repair shop spare parts market only.

Therefore, much unlike models 100 and 100N, the model 400 engineering and design changes must have been introduced silently, without marketing campaigns.

 

This could also explain the controversy of a significant number of hybrid pens with 400N bodies and nibs, but 400 caps (including some NOS never inked pens). Similar to the previously discussed elastomer piston seal controversy, there could have been a batch of 400 caps in some dark corners of the GW factory, whose number exceeded their estimations of service shop requirements. So, GW could have possibly decided to fit them onto a batch of pens. Too many such pens exist to be considered just frankenpens, assembly failures, cap-switch accidents or isolated cases of sloppy repair.

 

Athough collectionists and purists (including myself) would in fact dislike collecting and valuing such “hybrid” pens, according to the described scenario they may also have been put into existence as legitimate products… and as equally good writers, by no means inferior in performance to the “pedigree” bearing ones.

🙂

 

Some concrete references or expert opinions would be more than welcome. This controversy has already been tackled in at least two FPN threads. Here’s one:

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/367627-pelikan-400n-with-400-cap/

 

[tacitus]

Thank you @stoen for your discussion and the link to the interesting thread. 

 

When we found a fountain pen that cannot be explained by "our existing knowledge and experiences", it is not a good idea to jump to the conclusion that the parts have been replaced by the past owner, the current user or a third-party repairer.

 

It could have been repaired by an authorized Pelikan dealer/repairer (in some cases without original parts and replaced with old or new parts), or it could be a transitional model, which was an authorized product from the start. We have seen several such examples.

 

It is important to bear in mind that there are many possibilities. One of the aims of this thread and Pelikan forum is to create a stir in such existing knowledge, I think🙂.

[stoen]

Thank you for providing context and summarizing this discussion, @tacitus. Jumping to conclusions is never good.

Somewhat alike the elastomer seal controversy, all the options and evidence should be carefully weighed, examined and compared. That’s the principal value of this thread, IMO.

🙂

 

I have just one contextual remark yet to add:

Much of the indecision and prejudice against valuing suspected “transition models” may also come from the fact that, at least in the EU, many vintage Pelikan pens can be bought in flea markets, estate sales, even in scrap markets in neglected condition, mostly handled by people who don’t really know what they’re doing and wouldn’t bother switching parts or phisically breaking pens which would restored possibly sell for 200+€, just for the sake of extracting and selling 14k nibs to goldsmiths, for 9€ a piece.

 

 

[christof]

On 2/3/2023 at 8:14 AM, stoen said:

...

 

Some concrete references or expert opinions would be more than welcome. This controversy has already been tackled in at least two FPN threads. Here’s one:

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/367627-pelikan-400n-with-400-cap/

 

 

 

Okay, since you ask for opinions, I will share mine about this question/topic.

 

Every detail that is not verifiably documented leaves room for speculation and conjecture. There is no such thing as right or wrong. One can only distinguish between probable explanations and rather improbable ones.

 

The changes between the 400 and the 400N are purely cosmetic adjustments that were made from a design perspective. There are no technical or economic reasons for these changes. From this point of view, I share manas opinion* and I personally think it is unlikely that Pelikan sold transitional models between the 400 and the 400N. 

 

 

*

  

On 8/27/2022 at 1:31 AM, mana said:

I would very much veer towards that being just an aftermarket/post-sale replacement cap from a 400 instead of a factory produced and sold hybrid. I mean, when Pelikan ceased the production of the 400 to start producing the 400N, why would they sell 400N pens with 400 caps if they are producing 400N caps at the same time? Just to get rid of the caps?

 

Also, they are marketing the 400N as a 400N. Selling hybrids in any official capacity wouldn't really make sense, it would create a marketing and credibility nightmare.

 

[tacitus]

Pelikan 400NN⁽¹⁾ (1956-1965)

 

Model 400NN⁽¹⁾ was introduced in April 23, 1955 (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). Another "N" was added to the suffix⁽¹⁾. There were several differences in appearance, construction, and materials from model 400N. The changes, including those made along the way, are as follows;

 

• Cap*: The cap top became about 1.3 mm smaller in diameter (than model 400N). Its shape became more pointed and integrated into the cap itself (Pelikan’s Perch). The cap tube became about 2 mm longer, and the end on the cap top side became about 0.5 mm smaller in diameter. The engraving on the cap ring was "PELIKAN 400 - GERMANY"⁽¹⁾. The clip became about 1.3 mm shorter but further slimmer in the mid-portion.
  • The lower part of the cap tube was reinforced with a metal tube. 
  • In 1958, the cap tube was briefly equipped with "Kappensicherung" (cap safety device) (Pelikan Schreibgeräte, Pelikan’s Perch)⁽²⁾.
• Nib unit: Feed was same as the predecessors (please see Pelikan 400 (ca.1952)).
  • Nibs had a fir tree engraving, but from the late production, the diagonal lines no longer merged into the central slit⁽³⁾. 
  • Early collars were made of ebonite. However, the transparent polystyrene collars was introduced likely in the early 1960s (Pelikan’s Perch)⁽⁴⁾.
• Body*: The grip section, barrel, and piston seal seemed to be identical to model 400N (Pelikan’s Perch). The turning knob became about  1 mm shorter and more pointed.
• Color: colors of barrel and cap, and their combination were almost same as model 400 (please see Pelikan-collectibles and Pelikan’s Perch).
• Dimension*: The diameter in the middle was almost same as model 400N, but the length was about 2 mm increased (400N: 127.5 mm vs. 400NN: 129.5 mm). For a more detailed comparison of model 400, 400N, and 400N, please see Pelikan’s Perch.

 

As you can see from the photo of the three 400s side by side (please see above), model 400NN became even longer and more "streamlined" (although not strictly speaking) than the predecessors.

 

Like model 400/400N, some 400NN models were exported (Pelikan-collectibles)⁽⁵⁾.

 

Model 400NN had a full range of (semi) luxury models, befitting a flagship model. They were similar to those of model 400 (please see below).

 

The situation surrounding Pelikan and fountain pens changed dramatically during the production of the 400 series (400, 400N, and 400NN). Pushed aside by ballpoint pens, fountain pens entered a period of decline. While some manufacturers (including Pelikan) tried to survive by introducing cartridge-type pens and lower-end pens, others went out of business or were absorbed by other manufacturers (Ravens March Fountain Pens).

 

In September 1958, Pelikan introduced model P1, the first of a new generation of fountain pens that had been completely redeveloped in construction and design (Pelikan-collectibles.com). As a result, model 400NN vacated its flagship position, as seen in Pelikan catalog No.100A/4 (1962). But different from model 100N and 400, model P1 was not as successful as expected and was discontinued before its predecessor. In 1960, model Pelikano was introduced for school use. Based on the designs of P1, the model was Pelikan's first cartridge/converter filler. In 1961, models P25 and P15 were introduced.

 

Model 400NN was discontinued on July 28, 1965⁽⁶⁾. This marked the disappearance of the classic style fountain pens dating from 1929.

 

Note;*The measurements and engraving are based on my own pen. Therefore, there may be slight differences with other pens.

⁽¹⁾Contrary to model 100N, the suffix "NN" was only used internally, and was never published in any price list. The differentiation by the suffix was only used in spare parts product leaflets and in internal product descriptions (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). 

⁽²⁾A built-in springy steel ring inside the cap tube prevented the pen from accidentally opening in the pocket. As only a small fraction of 400NN had this feature, it is rather unlikely to run across one of them (@stoen).

⁽³⁾According to Pelikan catalogs, the changeover seemed to be around 1964 (please compare Pelikan catalog No.110B (1963) and Pelikan catalog (1964)). The late nib was produced by Merz & Krell (currently, Senator GmbH)(Pelikan-collectibles). Do you know why the design was changed? I have read elsewhere (万年筆おやじの備忘録) that this could be a yield issue in nib production. If a slit is made in a nib with merging diagonal lines, the diagonal lines will not merge cleanly when the slit is misaligned. If the diagonal lines do not merge, such problem can be avoided even if the slit is misaligned. This is just a guess.

⁽⁴⁾Succumbing to the lure of “high-tech plastics” (RichardsPens.com), Pelikan began to manufacture collars from this abundant and inexpensive material (Pelikan’s Perch). But the polystyrene collar was brittle and had significant failures over time in all the models which used it (Pelikan’s Perch).

⁽⁵⁾Model 400NN with 'EXPORT' engraving on the barrel are occasionally found. 

⁽⁶⁾Apart from the collar, model 400NN was a very complete model, both functionally and cosmetically, and the fact that it was produced for nine years speaks for itself.

 

Pelikan 400NN transparent demonstrator (ca.1956?)
Without cap safety device. Reinforcing metal tube inside the cap tube (arrow head).

 

Pelikan 400NN transparent demonstrator (ca.1958)
With cap safety device. Please compare with the pen above. Steel ring (red arrow) for the cap safety device. Click for the closer look. 

 

Pelikan 400NN (ca.1964)
My collection.

 

Pelikan 400NN (ca.1964)
Export model. "EXPORT" engraving on the barrel. 

 

Pelikan 400NN (ca.1964)

The cap ring is attached upside down (production error)

 

 

Pelikan 500NN

 

Pelikan 520NN

 

Pelikan 600NN

 

Pelikan 700NN

 

[stoen]

Discussion:

400NN Nib (1964)

 

On 2/9/2023 at 3:24 PM, tacitus said:

⁽³⁾According to Pelikan catalogs, the changeover seemed to be around 1964 (please compare Pelikan catalog No.110B (1963) and Pelikan catalog (1964)). The late nib was produced by Merz & Krell (currently, Senator GmbH)(Pelikan-collectibles).

I find this conclusion somewhat arguable and possibly misguiding. Therefore I’m opening this discussion.

It is unlikely that Merz & Krell started forging Pelikan 400 nibs in 1964 already, whole nine years before they got commissioned to producing Pelikan 400NN pens on behalf of GW.

 

The Pelikan 400NN nib (1964) and Pelikan 400NN M&K nib (1973-79) are different types of nib altogether.

 

Here’s some evidence:

(1) 1958 Pelikan 400NN

(2) 1964 Pelikan 400NN

 

In spite of bearing one purely cosmetic difference - fir tree patterns meeting (1) or not meeting (2) at the slit, both nibs are geometrically identical and fully functionally interchangeable among all 400 and 100N classes of pens. They fit specified GW nib units and perform equally well. Therefore the change may have been only cosmetic.

 

On the contrary, according to my findings,

(3) the official Merz & Krell 400NN nib

 

is not commonly known for having been produced before the 1973-1979 period. Although bearing the described “not-meeting-pattern” and some other cosmetical similarity to the 1964 400NN nib (4), it has a radically different geometry, smaller “waist”, bigger “shoulders” and narrower back-end radius, totally incompatible to any other Pelikan 400. It fits its own M&K feed and collar, assembling a unique nib unit (3) which is compatible only to Merz & Krell 400NN pens.

 

Further on, the nib grinding and specification was different. While (3) is bearing the EF sign, (4) is bearing the KEF sign, and are comparable in writing performance. It is not known that M&K ever specified “K” (ball shape tip grinding), since all their nib tips were ball-shaped, as compared to GW nibs.

 

This is for further reference:

https://thepelikansperch.com/2014/10/05/merz-krell-who-were-they/

 

 

 

 

 

[tacitus]

Thank you @stoen for the explanation with images. It is very compelling.

[tacitus]

Question about 400 nibs

 

My 400NN nib seems to be bent more downward compared to 400 and 400N nibs. I only have one 400NN, but I have seen such descriptions in other Japanese blogs.

 

Is it well known or does it happen to be an individual difference? What do you think about it?

 

If the former, how would that affect the writing or feeling of nibs?

 

From top to bottom, 400, 400N, and 400NN.

[tacitus]

Pelikan 140 (1952-1965)

 

On May 25, 1950, model 400 was introduced (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). In 1952, the product range was expanded. On April 22, 1952, the economy model 140 was introduced. The model number was "140" and was positioned as the successor to model "130" IBIS. Although the "torpedo" shape was inherited from model 130 IBIS, otherwise the construction and design (striped barrel, beak-shaped clip etc.) was, so to speak, a smaller version of the 400. Some parts, such as nibs and collars, were interchangeable with model 400. Model 130 IBIS remained in production for three years after the introduction of model 140.

 

• Model 140 was a low-priced model, and no luxury line was made. On the other hand, the model was sold under various manufacturers' names. So there were many variations (Pelikan-collectibles).
• Model 140 had desk set as well as model 400. They were produced (or modified) in Pelikan Milan factory.
• Like model 400 series, model 140 was exported with "EXPORT" engraving on the barrel. Model 140 with 18 carat gold nib for the French market also existed. 
• There were model 140 E and model 140 Z introduced in 1955 (Pelikan Schreibgeräte, Werner's Info-Page Pelikan-Pens, Pelikan-collectibles).
• The matching pencil was model 350. Originally, the model was introduced in 1950 as a matching pencil of model 100N, and had a drop clip. When model 140 was introduced, a beak-like clip was introduced to match model 140 (Pelikan Schreibgeräte, Pelikan’s Perch). Please see Pelikan catalog No.80 (1953). Both clip versions were listed on page 71.
• The matching ballpoint pen was model 355. The point to distinguishes it from model 455 (matching model 400) was that the stopper of model 355 was made of plastic, not a metal crown ring.

 

Model 140 was produced for 13 years until it was discontinued in 1965. The production period almost overlapped with model 400, and like 400, there were many changes over time (Pelikan-collectibles), many of which appear to have been made at the same time as the 400.

 

• When model 140 was introduced in 1952, the cap top had no Pelikan logo, and the cap ring had no engravings. Since the model was an economy model, the cap ring and clip were gold plated⁽¹⁾. The model was equipped with 14 carat gold nib⁽²⁾ and notched collar as model 400. The nib specification was engraved on the nib itself. The early feed was identical to that of model 100N (ca.1950) (click). Supposedly, the feed was redesigned in the same year or the following year. The redesigned feed was similar in construction to the late type feed of model 400, but about 2 mm shorter. The barrel had an engraving "Günther Wagner Pelikan" or "Günther Wagner Pelikan 140", and the turning knob also had a nib specification. The early piston seal was disk-shaped transparent nylon seal, which was replaced by wide transparent nylon seal in 1953.
• In 1954, several changes were made (Pelikan-collectibles)⁽³⁾. Cap top was engraved with Pelikan logo. Wide clip became narrower. The cap ring was engraved with "Pelikan 140 Germany". In turn the engraving on the barrels was abolished. The nib specification was also omitted. On December, the fir tree nib with stylized Pelikan logo was introduced.
• From May 27, 1957, black color pen with steel nib had chrome trims (Pelikan’s Perch, Pelikan Schreibgeräte).
• In 1958, the cap tube was briefly equipped with cap safety device (Pelikan’s Perch).
• The transparent polystyrene collar was introduced likely in the early 1960s (Pelikan’s Perch).
• In 1964, the design of the fir tree nib was changed. Thereafter, the oblique lines merged into the slit no more.
• On July 28, 1965, model 140 was discontinued, as was model 400NN.

 

Note;⁽¹⁾The cap ring and clip of model 400 were rolled gold (Pelikan catalog No.80 (1953), Pelikan catalog (1964))

⁽²⁾CN nib was also available (Pelikan-collectibles, Pelikan’s Perch, Pelikan Schreibgeräte), though not mentioned in Pelikan catalogs. CN nib was available upon request?

⁽³⁾In 1954, model 100N ans 130 IBIS were officially discontinued. In the next year, a lower-priced model 120 was launched. As a result, model 140 was upgraded to "middle" class around this time.

 

Pelikan 130 IBIS, 140, and 400

 

My collection.

 

Feed of model 140

By courtesy of  @stoen.  Caption was modified by me. 

 

Pelikan 140 (early version) (until 1954)

No Pelikan logo on the cap top, no engravings on the cap, old imprint on the nib, "Günther Wagner Pelikan" engraving on the barrel, and a nib specification on the turning knob.

 

Pelikan 140 with chromium-nickel (CN) nib

Old Pelikan CN nib.

 

Pelikan 140 with 18 carat gold nib (export model)

 

Pelikan 140 (export model)

 

Pelikan 140 desk pen

Pelikan 140 desk pen (top) and Pelikan 400 desk pen (bottom). By courtesy of Christof Zollinger.

 

Pelikan 350 mechanical pencil

The matching pencil of model  140. Originally, the model was introduced in 1950 as a matching pencil of model 100N, and had a drop clip (top). When model 140 was introduced in 1952, a beak-like clip was introduced to match model 140 (middle). In 1959, the model became slimmer in diameter (bottom).

 

Pelikan 355 ballpoint pen

Model 455 (top) had the crown (red arrow) in the stopper, while model 355 (bottom) had plastic plastic stopper. My collection.

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by tacitus
Words and photographs have been removed because errors were pointed out in the thread.

[stoen]

Discussion:

Pelikan 140 nibs & nib units

 

19 hours ago, tacitus said:

The model [140] was equipped with the same 14 carat gold nib⁽²⁾ and notched collar as model 400.

 

The above statement deserves some extra consideration:

 

- although Models 400 and 140 nibs follow the same engineering concept and could technically fit the same collar and mate with same feed (same bottom-end curvature radius), the 140 nib was substantially shorter and narrower at the shoulder end, and most likely must have evolved from the Ibis 130 nib. Here’s a side-by-side photo for comparison:

 

(1) Model 140 nib unit (1954)

(2) Model 400 nib unit (1951)

 

The inside part of the section/barrel unit was identical in 400 and 140, therefore the nib units were interchangeable. Yet, by doing so one would assemble a frankenpen, nevertheless.

🙂

 

As for the engineering evolution, the early feeds for all models were most likely machined from the same four-fin template, then the back-end would have been trimmed and fine-adjusted for 400, 100N and 140 (and 300).

—————————————

 

On the contrary, the later feeds had different designs for 140 and 400, and the compensation  chamber side notches were placed differently on 140 feeds (1) and 400 feeds (2).

 

Hope this can help.