Dating Pelikan fountain Pen

[tacitus]

22 hours ago, mizgeorge said:

... a picture of someone presenting their 100 series pen with flowers and chocolates and taking her out for dinner...

Thank you for comment😊.

I know my post are pedantic. I'd like to see the picture.

 

[tacitus]

19 hours ago, Christopher Godfrey said:

 Aragato!

 

Douitashimashite (you are welcome)😊.

[tacitus]

16 hours ago, DerMarsianer said:

Hopefully this is not a replacement for a broken barrel.

I hope not, too😊.

 

Thank you for the comments and the link to Chritof’s pens.

I'd like to take beautiful photos like you and Chritof. 

Let us know if you get further information on the topic.

[tacitus]

AMENDMENT to Third and Fourth generation

 

@DerMarsianer informed us that the barrel was green in the Pelikan catalog from 1934, p129).

According to @stoen (replay to DerMarsianer) and @penboard.de(Barrels of Pelikan 100 and 100N), the green barrel seems to date back to the third generation. So, the description of the barrel should be be as follows:

 

Barrel; material: transparent amber (yellow) or green celluloid with brass ring. 

 

[stoen]

5 hours ago, tacitus said:

the green barrel seems to date back to the third generation.

Thanks for trying to put our fragments of knowledge into some kind of order that can easily be followed and understood, @tacitus .  Still I find a 3rd generation body with the green acetate barrels very uncommon - I have the only one I’ve ever seen. It seems that those two types of barrell coexisted for quite some time (including the yellow barrels for early 100N, 1937-38). After that the green acetate seems having taken over. Here’s some interesting documentation.

 

From the same Pelikan 4th generation catalog, here’s the fragment showing dealer prices for individual parts, which were seemingly freely available:

 

Individual parts:

• Nib w. feed & bushing (nib assembly)
• Barrel
• Piston head
• Mechanism (Piston rod w. head, guide, spindle w. roraty head)
• Cap tube
• Cap top
• Clip or rolled gold ring for ladies’ pens

(the rest is about engravings) 

 

What I can learn from here is that bindes and sections weren’t sold separately, but the barrels seemingly having been sold as single units (barrel+ binde+section). 

This list also corroborates what I’ve learned from some older people while they were still alive: it was not uncommon ordering an extra nib...

 

What is also important to stress about this catalog is that the black and green bindes were made for german market. For export many more colors existed, including yellow, grey, red, blue, brown, olive and several shades and textures of green.

[tacitus]

10 hours ago, stoen said:

... Still I find a 3rd generation body with the green acetate barrels very uncommon - I have the only one I’ve ever seen. It seems that those two types of barrell coexisted for quite some time (including the yellow barrels for early 100N, 1937-38). After that the green acetate seems having taken over. Here’s some interesting documentation...

Thank you for the investigation.

 

 As for the material, I have basic questions.

Green Book and many sites about Pelikan describe that the barrel was made of celluloid.

The yellow barrel was made of cellulose nitrate (celluloid), right?

Then, the green barrel was made of cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate?

In the latter case, cellulose acetate was called "celluloid" in a broad sense？

[stoen]

5 hours ago, tacitus said:

The yellow barrel was made of cellulose nitrate (celluloid), right?

Then, the green barrel was made of cellulose nitrate or cellulose acetate?

This is true for the two barrel units I have, as well as for most of the fourth generation #100 pens and the pre-1940 #100N pens I’ve come across. There might have also been green-dyed cellulose nitrate barrels, although I haven’t found them personally. Possibly some could have gone unnoticed among those with heavily stained ink windows which I haven’t cleaned.

 

 

Tom Westerich ( penboard.de ) has published this photo, but some types of section don’t seem to match the years and some broken barrels are incomplete. The third barrel from the left is likely misdated, it looks like a 3rd generation (1931-33).

In my experience, all celluloid (cellulose nitrate) objects show a tendency of getting an amber tint with aging.

Cellulose acetate is more of a “relative” of celluloid than the injection moulded acrylic plastic (the rightmost in the picture).

 

 

Cap tube addendum (3rd & 4th generation):

 

-vent hole distances from cap top:

 

• 3rd generation: 4.5mm & 10.5mm
• 4th generation: 7mm

[tacitus]

22 hours ago, stoen said:

... There might have also been green-dyed cellulose nitrate barrels, although I haven’t found them personally...In my experience, all celluloid (cellulose nitrate) objects show a tendency of getting an amber tint with aging. Cellulose acetate is more of a “relative” of celluloid than the injection moulded acrylic plastic...

Thank you for comment.

I have several green barrels in the fourth generation. One of them seems to be cellulose nitrate, judging from its smell of camphor. As for others without smell, I can't tell by appearance😅.

 

22 hours ago, stoen said:

Cap tube addendum (3rd & 4th generation):

 

-vent hole distances from cap top:

 

• 3rd generation: 4.5mm & 10.5mm
• 4th generation: 7mm

 

I did not notice that!😲

In the third generation (later ver.) (middle), vent hole is open at the middle to upper side of the groove, while in the fourth generation (right), vent hole is open at the lower edge.

[OMASsimo]

Unfortunately, I cannot contribute much to the dating of the Pelikan 100 but at least I know a little bit about the chemistry of the materials. The name celluloid was a brand name for a cellulose nitrate plastics, the first thermoplastic available. The cellulose, a polymer of poly alcohols (like sugars), is esterified by nitric acid, washed, dissolved in ethanol, and mixed with camphor as a plasticiser. The celluloid precipitates upon evaporation of the solvent and then is collected, molten and formed into blocks. Depending on how carefully this is done, the final material may or may not have a smell of camphor. One of my two Pelikan 100 pens has a very strong camphor smell while many of my other 1930s celluloid pens don’t have this smell at all. This means that also for Pelikan, the presence or absence of that smell might depend on the delivered celluloid batch. 
 

Celluloid was used so much because it had excellent mechanical properties and was crystal clear. It was easy to dye either as translucent or opaque material and it was possible to produce really stunning looks. It also was fairly easy to produce in good quality. There mostly are two drawbacks. Celluloid blocks must be aged (tempered) properly because the material shrinks. And it is highly inflammable! Another disadvantage that didn’t matter at the time is that over many decades the crystal clear celluloid ambers. So, an amber ink window is quite indicative of celluloid.

 

Cellulose acetate is closely related to celluloid but not the same. As the name says, it’s an acetic acid ester of cellulose. Most properties are fairly similar to those of celluloid but there are subtle differences. But most of all, it was much harder to produce in sufficiently good quality. So, iirc, the breakthrough only came in the  1940s-1950s to replace celluloid, particularly for film material. I have a war time 100 with a translucent green section like the 100N shown above. It’s clearly not made of celluloid but whether it’s acrylic or cellulose acetate I cannot tell. Both can be injection modded as far as I know.

[stoen]

6 hours ago, tacitus said:

I have several green barrels in the fourth generation. One of them seems to be cellulose nitrate, judging from its smell of camphor.

You’ve made a good point:

• camphor smell can be a telltale sign of cellulose nitrate. It is camphor which gives it elasticity
• good condition celluloid does not smell by itself
• those two-piece barrels not releasing a nuance of camphor smell when softly rubbed over the ink window, are most likely acetate. 
• It is some times difficult to tell a yellow nitrate ink stained barrel from a green one until removing the binde and piston assembly, which is risky in some old pens
• cleaning the ink staining from inside of the barrel brings serious risks of damaging cellulose nitrate beyond repair (crazing). The stain layer seems to protect the celluloid from further damage on the inside.

 

Another related material, cellulose propionate is known for being used in injection moulding.

I haven’t come across information of Pelikan having used cellulose acetate in injection moulding barrels, possibly so. AFAIK, they certainly used injection moulding as of 1940, with acrylic plastic. Those one-piece barrels were light green transparent and didn’t stain from ink.

[tacitus]

On 4/7/2021 at 4:52 AM, OMASsimo said:

...Depending on how carefully this is done, the final material may or may not have a smell of camphor...the presence or absence of that smell might depend on the delivered celluloid batch...There mostly are two drawbacks. Celluloid blocks must be aged (tempered) properly because the material shrinks...Another disadvantage that...over many decades the crystal clear celluloid ambers. So, an amber ink window is quite indicative of celluloid...

 

On 4/7/2021 at 5:23 AM, stoen said:

• good condition celluloid does not smell by itself
• those two-piece barrels not releasing a nuance of camphor smell when softly rubbed over the ink window, are most likely acetate. 
• It is some times difficult to tell a yellow nitrate ink stained barrel from a green one until removing the binde and piston assembly, which is risky in some old pens

 

@OMASsimo, @stoen

Thank you for your comments. I learned much about the materials of the barrel. 

I agree that well-made celluloid does not smell.

 

BTW, several people reported in FPN the shrinkage of the celluloid barrel of Originals of their Time 1935 (reproduction of model 101).

According to this, the celluloid supplied by VISCONTI was not aged enough, and Günter Wagner gave up making celluloid pen.

 

M101N (reproduction of model 101N) are now made of cellulose acetate.

[tacitus]

Green indicates the changes in this generation.

ADDENDUM to Fourth generation

Pelikan 100 (ca.1935)

 

In the middle 1930's, Günter Wagner made one major and one minor change in specification. The former was that Günter Wagner started in-house nib production in 1934 or 1935. The latter was that the company changed the place where the nib width was indicated. As from August 30, 1935 the nib width was inscribed on the tine of the feed instead of nib itself (Green Book). Does anyone know the reason for the change?

 

As shown in Fig.1, the nib no longer had nib width on it. In Fig.2 top, “B” is seen on the right tine. On the other side, the manufacturer marker?(🌟) is seen (Fig.2 bottom). So, .

 

I have not mentioned the feed yet. Originally, the tine of the feed was used to indicate the Günter Wagner employee who made the quality control (Green Book). In addition, the manufacturer mark that indicate the supplier of the metal was sometimes inscribed on the tine (pelikan-collectibles). So, some feeds had one or two mark(s) on one side or both sides, the others had no mark (after 1935, feed had up to 3 marks on the tines).

 

Fig.1

 

Fig.2

 

Then, as from September 9, 1936, the nib width was inscribed on the “cone” (visible part of the piston guide) (for the German market only) (Green Book). I don’t have the pen of the time.

 

NB; a long time ago, as the original barrel was broken, I replaced it with a replacement barrel. It was originally clear transparent. Now that it is stained with ink, it is not easy to distinguish between the original and replacement barrel at a glance (Fig.3). It may be possible only at a closer look or on the light (Fig.4). Anyway, it fits the cap, sleeve, and knob unit well, and ink does not leak from the section joint. Is it still available? 

 

Fig.3

 

Fig.4

[stoen]

On 4/7/2021 at 2:45 PM, tacitus said:

Now that it is stained with ink, it is not easy to distinguish between the original and replacement barrel at a glance (Fig.3). It may be possible only at a closer look or on the light (Fig.4)

With a really decently made replacement/restoration barrel, it may be even more difficult to tell it from the original....

 

*** *** *** *** *** ***

It would be also good to resolve this ambiguity about cap tube holes locations in the 3rd and 4th generation pens.

Quote

In the third generation (later ver.) (middle), vent hole is open at the middle to upper side of the groove, while in the fourth generation (right), vent hole is open at the lower edge.

According to Pelikan drafts, locations of  these holes have less to do with cap tube threading and grooving than with the engineering of the single/double captop-section-captube sealing mechanisms. They must match the positioning of how deep from the tube upper end the captop edge locks-in with the section axially, and the section locks with tube inner wall laterally, rather than the geometry of the inner threads, and this finding is consistent among the pens I have/had. Please, also observe that the leftmost, “early” 3rd generation cap tube in the quoted picture features only 5 threads, whereas the other two feature 7.

🙂

As I have no example of what is called a “later version”  of the third generation pen here, it would be very kind of you and good for this thread if you could measure the positioning of these cap tube holes in your pens with a caliper and post your findings too.

This may be important because I’ve seen a number of “replacement” 3rd generation cap tubes, which were really modeled after or borrowed from the 4th generation cap tubes, only with a pair of extra holes added, drilled 6-7mm below the existing ones (i.e. 7 & 13-14 mm)

Thanks in advance!

 

*** *** *** *** *** ***

 As for the nib width inscription:

Quote

Then, as from September 9, 1936, the nib width was inscribed on the “cone” (visible part of the piston guide) (for the German market only) (Green Book). I don’t have the pen of the time.

 

 

Here’s a picture showing one:

🙂

 

 

[tacitus]

On 4/9/2021 at 4:11 AM, stoen said:

As for the nib width inscription:

 

Here’s a picture showing one:

🙂

 

 

 

@stoen

I found another 4 holes grooved tube, which is different form the one I posted before in vent hole location.

I'll measure them and post.

 

Thank you for showing your pen.

It is a Pelikan 100 (ca.1936) with a beautiful brown binde.

 

[DerMarsianer]

Thank you @OMASsimo and @stoen for the celloloid explanation.

Another box for the Pelikan-Füllfederhalter. The first and/or second generation box with manual:

 

[stoen]

On 4/11/2021 at 2:12 PM, DerMarsianer said:

The first and/or second generation box with manual:

That’s beautiful and rare, @DerMarsianer!

👍

Would you please mind scanning and posting the User Guide for the 1st/2nd generation pen?

Thanks in advance!

[tacitus]

Thank you @DerMarsianer.

 

Now, we have the boxes from the 1st to 4th generation.

 

At first, I thought that boxes were all the same throughout generations.

But, we can see that the design and the picture of the pen were changed little by little in line with the generation. 

 

the 1st/2nd generation

the 3rd generation

the 4th generation

 

[tacitus]

ADDENDUM to Third generation

 

Pointed out by @stoen, I “looked into” the cap tubes of the 3rd generation. Measurements showed that they are categorized into (at least) 3 versions on the groove and vent hole position (Figure). As shown in Graph, version 3.1 has the same vent hole positions as version 3.0, and version 3.2 has the same first vent hole position as version 4. If my observation is correct and tubes are original (not "drilled"), cap tubes might be developed and fitted to pens in this order (there might be exceptions^*). Günter Wagner sought for a better sealing system and version 4 was the answer.

 

Figure

 

Graph

Tube ver.(1)	Groove	1st hole(2)	2nd hole(2)	Note(3)	n(4)
3.0	-	5.3-5.5	11.3-11.5	3rd gen.(barrel w/o ring, barrel w/ ring)	4
3.1	+	5.2-5.4	11.4-11.5	3rd gen.(barrel w/ ring), 4th gen.(#110)*	3
3.2	+	7.2	14.2	3rd gen.(barrel w/ ring)	1
4	+	7.2-7.3	N/A	4th gen.(#100, #101, #111, #T111, #112)	8

 

⁽¹⁾ “version” is not official and is for the descriptive purpose.

⁽²⁾ length from top to the center of the vent hole (mm).

⁽³⁾ my pen(s) that have the cap tube in question. For some tubes, I have them only as parts. So, other combinations may be possible. 

⁽⁴⁾ sample number

[stoen]

Thanks for the research, @tacitus

 

The 3.0 and 3.1 fall within the category of my measurements. It depends on from where to where is the measurement being made and how precise is the caliper.

 

The number 4.0 is clearly a fourth generation.

 

The number 3.2 looks suspect the way I was pointing against. It looks as if the second pair of holes was added to a 4.0, not even carefully enough to be in line with the first pair. I see no functional reason for using this kind of tube with neither third nor fourth generation pens. 

• in combination with third generation sections it is disfunctional because the upper pair of holes isn’t located where it should equalize the air pressure from the lateral seal.
• in combination with the fourth generetion sections the lower pair of holes would be extraneous.

[tacitus]

3 hours ago, stoen said:

The number 3.2...looks as if the second pair of holes was added to a 4.0, not even carefully enough to be in line with the first pair. I see no functional reason for using this kind of tube with neither third nor fourth generation pens.

 

Thank you for dep insight @stoen😉

If not drilled by Günter Wagner, I think it interesting that "who" and "when" did it🤔