Dating Pelikan fountain Pen

[tacitus]

3 hours ago, Nethermark said:

Just to say that this is a great thread! I'm learning so much from this. So far I don't have any of these very early versions of the Pelikan 100, but they are fascinating.

 

Thank you Nethermark.

 

I'm happy you are interested in early 100s😄

I'm preparing to post mid-100s. 

 

 

[sansenri]

thank you, very interesting. Looking forward to next chapter.

[tacitus]

Thank you sansenri for comment😘

Please also refer to Pelikan 100 nib.

There are many interesting information😄.

[tacitus]

ADDENDUM to First to Third generation

 

As discussed in Pelikan 100 nib, nibs, especially their imprints give us many information, I post new nib photos with better focusing. For details, pleases refer to the thread.

 

 Pelikan fountain pen (ca,1929) 

 

Pelikan fountain pen (ca.1930)

Please note "P" and "l" are worn out. 

 

Pelikan 100 (ca.1931)

[stoen]

A Possible Transitional Model 1930/31 (?)

 

I have seen an interesting pen: it had a celluloid/ebonite/brass-ring barrel/section unit described as 1931 herewith, but a cylindrical “non-streamlined” captop described here as earlier.

 

Although I wish I could have afforded it, I don’t believe it was a frankenpen. I trusted the person who owned it as one if the most knowledgeable Pelikan 100 fountain pen experts I’ve met.

 

What do the other references say? Is there a hard proof that the barrel material + section/collar engineering and cap-top design change have been launched simultanously or there might have been a transitional few month period?

 

I’ll try to find the photograph if I still have it somewhere.

 

[tacitus]

Thank you stoen.

 I think the pen is not a later "marriage"(Rick Propas) but a transitional model.

As described before, the model with 2 cap holes (one pair) and two cap rings exists (Green Book) in the second generation.

I also have pen parts which I think indicate that some design or constructional changes were made over a period of time. I'll post them after the next.

[tacitus]

Green indicates the changes in this generation.

 

Fourth generation

Pelikan 100 (ca.1933)

 

Cap top; material: ebonite, shape: conical, inclined top edge, logo: old four chicks logo on the top and “Pelikan PATENT Pelikan PATENT” on the lateral side.

Cap tube; material: ebonite, shape: 2 cap holes (one hole facing each other), two gold plated brass bands, ring groove around the inner wall at the level of vent holes .

Clip; material: gold plated brass, shape: drop clip.

Nib; material: 14 KG, shape: round shaped hole, logo:

Pelikan

14 KARAT

EF

Note: made by Montblanc.

Nib socket; material: ebonite, shape: short (12 mm). 

Grip section; material: ebonite, shape; inclined top edge and no flat side edge, tapered.

Barrel; material: transparent amber (yellow) celluloid with brass ring. Note: My pen has been too darkened over time to see inside.

Sleeve (Binde); material: celluloid.

Knob unit; material: ebonite with cork seal, shape: knurled turning knob.

Dimensions;

Total Cap Barrel Barrel Barrel Cap Ink Total  length length length width(1) width(2) width capacity(3) weight 115 mm 61 mm 93 mm 12 mm 11 mm 13 mm 1.5 ml 14.5 g

 ⁽¹⁾with sleeve ⁽²⁾without sleeve ⁽³⁾ink chamber volume

 

In June 1933, Günter Wagner changed the sealing system (pelikan-collectibles). According to Green Book, two seals and two vent holes system had disadvantages. 

• The lateral seal would deteriorate with friction caused by screw on and off actions.
• The second vent hole was required to ventilate the grip section, which led to the increased cost.

As a matter of fact, the lateral seal was no longer necessary, because the diagonal seal worked very well. Günter Wagner decided to abandon the lateral seal. Specifically, the ring groove was added to the inner wall of the cap tube (Fig.4 arrow head) and the grip section was tapered with its flat side edge removed (Fig.5 arrow head). As a result, the side edge no longer rubbed against the inner wall, and one vent hole was capable of both equalizing the pressure of the nib unit section (Fig.6 red  arrow) and ventilating the grip section (Fig.6 blue arrow). Thus, additional vent holes also became unnecessary and abandoned. The new sealing system might work very well. It had not been changed for almost 5 years. 

 

In 1934, the product range was further expanded. Mechanical pencil (model 200) and its short variant (model 210) were introduced. They were named “Auch Pelikan” (auch=also), because they were “also” Pelikan writing instruments (Pelikan official site).

 

As for the nibs, they still had been outsourced. According to A History of Pelikan, “Beginning in 1924, Montblanc relied on Pelikan for ink, and Pelikan, which did not have its own metal working facilities before 1935, relied on Montblanc for nibs.” Günter Wagner allegedly started their in-house nib production in 1934 or 1935.

 

Late in this generation, the place where the nib width specification was inscribed was changed (I’ll mention it later).

 

NB; Nibs, as well as sleeves, offer much information in dating. Please see Pelikan 100 nib.

 

Fig.1

 

Fig.2

 

Fig.3

 

Fig.4

left; ca.1931, right; ca.1933

 

Fig.5

left; ca.1930, right; ca.1933

 

Fig.6

 

Fig.7

Box for 100 as of 1933

Edited March 30, 2021 by tacitus
information added

[tacitus]

ADDENDUM to Third generation

 

When I looked into the cap tube of my third generation pens (ca.1931-), I found a groove in one of them (Figure middle). I had been thinking that the groove was added for the first time in the fourth generation pens (ca.1933-)(Figure right), simultaneously with other constructional changes. However, this indicates that Günter Wagner made it sometime during the third generation.

 

Left; 100 (ca.1931), middle; 100 (ca.1932?), right; 100 (ca.1933-)

 

Considering altogether this and other examples, it seems that some specification changes were made at different periods of time, and thus there exists transitional models.

 

Here, I quote Rick Propas’ comment on Pelikan 100 from A History of Pelikan.

 

“Between 1929 and 1933, when the design of the 100 settled, for at least a few years, into the form we know, the pens underwent a dizzying series of developments. Those who should know better often claim that it’s easy to collect Pelikans because there was only one model. To those of us who pursue the elusive early birds there is a dizzying array of variants--plain caps and caps with bands; caps with a single pair of vents and double vents; cylindrical captops and tapered captops; barrels made of bakelite, barrels made of celluloid and barrels made of acrylics; sections that are straight and sections that taper, feeds with three even vanes and feeds with a recessed center vane. You get the idea, and I haven’t even begun to talk about the real arcana, for example the section to inner cap seals. Through all these changes, month by month Pelikan was tweaking the design and function of the pen.”

 

I have no words to add to his comment.

[stoen]

On 3/30/2021 at 12:44 PM, tacitus said:

I have no words to add to his comment.

I find this thread being the best answer to Mr. Propas’ review. Where Mr. Propas gives a fair comprehensive impresiom, this thread is going into exact detail. 🙂

 

The information on the evolution of capping and cap venting mechanisms is of particular value.

 

My experience is that between 1933 and 1936 (and perhaps even somewhat later) the engineering of Pelikan 100 has remained rather stable, except for the nib grade designation on the feeds and the piston mechanism sections, AFAIK. I hope we can agree in naming this period the fourth generation. Modular design has reached here its practical high point. Almost all of the parts are interchangeable, so taking a dozen pens from that period apart and reassembling them at random would make a dozen pens as authentic and as good. In other words: no detectable 

“mariages” or “frankenpens” from parts of that period. Therefore these pens are known for outstanding serviceability, and quite a few are still available worldwide.

 

Quote

[nib]

 

  Pelikan

14 KARAT

      EF

Note: made by Montblanc

Judging from the contributions in other FPN threads and some working experience, the only significant variety throughout this period were the nibs.

 

There is a dominant embossing pattern similar to the one of the first generation MB nibs, which may have minor variety in different series of nibs which can therefore be suspected as MB made, but there are also nibs with embossing patterns which have almost nothing in common with it. So, other manufacturers could also have taken part in the business. Here are the two nibs belonging to the two of my “fourth generation pens”, as examples:

This one belongs to a 1933 pen

This one belongs to a 1934/35 pen and has a pattern very similar to the one found on Magnum nibs (without the “artifact” triangle, of course).

Both are M.

None of them has its tip grade embossed!

 

Even with the later in-house produced nibs, and millenial fineness designated nibs, I feel inclined to seeing those early pens (from 1933 up to early 1938) as the same or almost the same generation, because I haven’t come across detectable engineering changes.

 

[tacitus]

Thank you stoen.

 

I never thought that 100 nibs have so many types of imprints including nib width specifications and manufacturer markers😃.  They or the lack of them give us much information on "when the nib was made " and "who made the nib."

[tacitus]

ADDENDUM to Fourth generation

Pelikan 110 (ca.1933)

 

This is model 110. What’s important is not the model itself but the combination of the cap and the body. It has a tapered grip section characteristic of the fourth generation (ca.1933-), while it has 4 vent holes cap (the third generation) (ca.1931-) (Fig.1). The combination may be original, unless the body or the cap was replaced (the possibility may be slim, as model 110 is very rare: Green Book). The cap tube has the groove in it (Fig.2). So, it seems that Günter Wagner utilized the parts of the preceding generation. This may be another example of transitional pens.

 

Fig.1

 

Fig,2

[stoen]

Very interesting addendum, @tacitus . Some extra information on these “overlay” models would be very welcome, such as barrel width, cap tube width, exploded view.

Quote

This may be another example of transitional pens.

Somebody wrote, possibly Rick Propas, or Dominic, that Pelikan used to put a “buffer” binde onto the barrel and shave it down so it can accomodate the overlay tightly. They allegedly had a yellow binde stock surplus, so taking apart an overlay model could possibly bring a surprise.

🙂

 

And here’s the “100” box as of 1931:

 

[tacitus]

18 hours ago, stoen said:

... Pelikan used to put a “buffer” binde onto the barrel and shave it down so it can accomodate the overlay tightly...

 

Very interesting! I'll check my pens😊.

The grip section tells that the box is for 1931 pen!

[tacitus]

On 4/2/2021 at 3:34 AM, stoen said:

...

Pelikan used to put a “buffer” binde onto the barrel and shave it down so it can accomodate the overlay tightly. They allegedly had a yellow binde stock surplus, so taking apart an overlay model could possibly bring a surprise.

...

 

Eureka!
I managed to displace the gold overlay a little to show a “buffer” binde (arrow head) underneath it .

The binde seems to be pale green.

 

 

ADDENDUM to Fourth generation

Pelikan 111 (ca.1933)

Model 111 was introduced as "Pelikan Gold" in 1930. It was characterized by cap bands and sleeve in 14 carat gold. For other parts, it was same as model 100. The hallmark "585" can be seen on the top of the overlay (arrow).

 

Warning; trying to disassemble the vintage pen may put it at the risk of breakage

 

PS; barrel width w/o buffer binde: 11.0 mm, barrel width w/ buffer binde: 11.7 mm, barrel width w/ gold overlay: 12.2 mm. The width is almost the same as 100s. So, it does not look plump.

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by tacitus
information added by request

[stoen]

14 hours ago, tacitus said:

The binde seems to be pale green.

Great finding, @tacitus .

👍

This makes two points:

• reason why they call these models “overlay”.
• proof there was indeed a variety of green colored bindes, contrary to what some experts presume, that there used to be only one plain green color, which has faded over time from pen to pen, depending on the extent of atmospheric and daylight exposure. Under the overlay made of gold the binde must have suffered neglectable exposure, and the pale green color might have stayed very alike to what it was 80+ years ago.

Please, make sure to measure and post the barrel, binde, overlay and cap tube dimensions.

[mizgeorge]

It doesn't matter how many times I see this topic heading, I still have a picture of someone presenting their 100 series pen with flowers and chocolates and taking her out for dinner...

[Christopher Godfrey]

<Just to say that this is a great thread!>   +1 !!!! 😊

 

Thank you, tacitus.  Aragato!

[DerMarsianer]

17 hours ago, tacitus said:

 

Eureka!
I managed to displace the gold overlay a little to show a “buffer” binde (arrow head) underneath it .

The binde seems to be pale green.

 

ADDENDUM to Fourth generation

Pelikan 111 (ca.1933)

Model 111 was introduced as "Pelikan Gold" in 1930. It was characterized by cap bands and sleeve in 14 carat gold. For other parts, it was same as model 100. The hallmark "585" can be seen on the top of the overlay (arrow).

 

Warning; trying to disassemble the vintage pen may put it at the risk of breakage

This looks like the usual green bind to me. Hopefully this is not a replacement for a broken barrel.

I only know this pen with a black layer under the gold sleve. The material is something different than the usual binde (sorry only in german):
https://www.penexchange.de/forum_neu/viewtopic.php?t=9623#p80406

 

My pen looks similar (but is not brooken 🙂) The sleve is not that tight anymore and easy to remove. So no pelicans where misstreated or had to die for this picture.

 

 

I remember seeing one of these pens (110,111,112) with another colored layer for sale some years ago, somewhere in the internet. I don't remember the color, the pen or where I found it. I just remember that I was wondering if that was an original layer. Maybe it was yellow, but I think that looked different than the usual binde, but it's possible that I didn't recognize due to oxidation or some chemical reactions to the glue.

Greetings Thorsten

 

[DerMarsianer]

On 3/29/2021 at 3:29 PM, tacitus said:

Green indicates the changes in this generation.

 

Fourth generation

Pelikan 100 (ca.1933)

...

Barrel; material: transparent amber (yellow) celluloid with brass ring. Note: My pen has been too darkened over time to see inside.

 

I've read a couple of times to be more precise, the barrel was made of cellulose acetate and/or cellulose nitrate. Do you know more about this? If so, and both materials where used, do you or a anybody else know how to tell them apart?

Something no one has really noticed, including me. The Pelikan catalog from 1934 (Hauptliste Nr 60) listed the Pelikan 100 on page 129 with the following words:

Pelikan - 100
mit grüner oder
schwarzer Binde.
Durchsicht: grün.

translation:

Pelikan - 100
with green or
black binde.
Seethrough: green.

https://www.pelikan-collectibles.com/en/Pelikan/Catalogues/index.html#heading_toc_j_2

 

The same words where used 1938 in the catalog 70 for the Pelikan 100n.

 

[stoen]

11 hours ago, DerMarsianer said:

pen with a black layer under the gold sleve. The material is something different

I actually have one barrel with black “underbinde” layer from a pen with gold overlay, and this happened to be a replacement for a broken celluloid upper part. It was done by a skillfull repairman nevertheless. I shaved the black part to be at the same level as the celluloid ink window, since the gold overlay is gone.

 

Quote

...cellulose acetate and/or cellulose nitrate...

AFAIK, the cellulose nitrate is synonimous for celluloid, whereas the cellulose acetate is a more modern and chemically inert compound related to celluloid.

 

I’ve taken apart pens with both, nitrate and acetate barrels. The nitrate ones had basic light amber color (where not stained), while acetate ones were greenish. I have two spare bodies. Both of those are mounted to straight, concave, “third generation” sections. I’ve been told by more expert people that the greenish one was more of an exception for that generation.

 

This is not a good picture, just a quick shot: objects are hand-held against the light, distance is not equal, so one appears larger than the other, whereas it isn’t. Yet it gives an impression of the materials. Both barrels are cleaned from the inside as much as possible. Hope it can help.

🙂

 

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by stoen
added picture