22 replies to this topic

[djohannsen]

Over on Pen Trace, Lex posted a photo of (what to me) is an interesting pen.  The pen and its box can be seen at: http://members2.boardhost.com/pentrace/msg/457235.html
It looks to me (both from the style of the pen and the box) that this dates from the early 20th century (first decade?).  Does anyone know anything about this company (where they were based, when they were in business, etc)?  Does anyone on this list have any of these pens (or have seen many)?  I am curious if all these pens have this interesting shape (somewhat similar to those of WA Houston, though obviously different).  I have never heard of this maker, and am just hoping to learn a bit.  Thanks for any replies.


Dave

[Ron Dutcher]

Over on Pen Trace, Lex posted a photo of (what to me) is an interesting pen.  The pen and its box can be seen at: http://members2.boardhost.com/pentrace/msg/457235.html
It looks to me (both from the style of the pen and the box) that this dates from the early 20th century (first decade?).  Does anyone know anything about this company (where they were based, when they were in business, etc)?  Does anyone on this list have any of these pens (or have seen many)?  I am curious if all these pens have this interesting shape (somewhat similar to those of WA Houston, though obviously different).  I have never heard of this maker, and am just hoping to learn a bit.  Thanks for any replies.
Dave

 

Interestingly..... I am working now on an article about E. S. Johnson for next month's issue of Lion and Pen's articles.  I don't want to let too much out now, but by the 1890's Johnson was no longer manufacturing many pens himself, but primarily buying pens with his name stamped upon them.

Before 1890 he made a ton of mechanical pencils and dip pens.

Patents I have for him are:

121,627
191,154
290,988
302,257

[rhr]

Hi Guys,

I don't think the pen in Lex's photo is an E. S. Johnson.  I think the pen in the Johnson box is a George F. Hawkes pen that's been placed in an E. S. Johnson box.  See his patent no. 50,470 from 1865, quite a rare, early pen.  It may have been sold in that box originally, but it's not a Johnson pen.  It may have been made by Hawkes for Johnson, or Johnson may have merely been the agent for the pen company, or a dealer in the pen brand, thus supporting Ron's allegations.

George Kovalenko.

[Rob Astyk]

Hi, Dave, Ron, George, et al.

I'd like to add to the list of reasons why that possible Hawkes pen would be in what appears to be a standard E.S. Johnson dip pen box. The Johnson box might be that in which a new, more satisfactory pen came. The old, less satisfactory pen goes in the new pen's box and gets stowed in a drawer.

If only people a century ago could have forseen the contortions of logic into which we pen collectors would twist ourselves because of a mismatch between an unmarked or oddly marked pen and the box it comes in, they would have collapsed in gales of laughter and, with extremely perverse delight, have done it much more often. Which is not to say, George, that your restrained message twisted itself at all, but we all have taken slim evidence and stretched it thinner in trying to reason out some mismatch of box or a part, etc.

Personally, I recommend switching parts and boxes on as many contemporary pens as possible to provide collectors two or three generations hence conundrums on which to cogitate.  

Take care,

Rob Astyk

[lex]

Hi Guys,

I don't think the pen in Lex's photo is an E. S. Johnson.  I think the pen in the Johnson box is a George F. Hawkes pen that's been placed in an E. S. Johnson box.  See his patent no. 50,470 from 1865, quite a rare, early pen.  It may have been sold in that box originally, but it's not a Johnson pen.  It may have been made by Hawkes for Johnson, or Johnson may have merely been the agent for the pen company, or a dealer in the pen brand, thus supporting Ron's allegations.

George Kovalenko.

 

here are the pics i have of the pen George
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj1"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj2"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj3"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj4"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj5"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj6"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj7"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj8"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj9"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...sj10"></center>

[Rob Astyk]

Hi, Lex,

I think that we can solve the mystery.

Obviously, the pen was sold by E.S. Johnson and my conjectures about a mismatched box is totally wrong. In the days when this pen was sold one could have the maker install any nib one pleased. I would fully expect that Johnson, as a gold pen maker and vendor, would install his own nibs in the stock he bought.

Now, indulge me a little and go out to the Lion & Pen web page. Scroll down to Ron's "Fountain Pen Archive" and click on the article about the Prince's Protean Fountain Pen. Do you see anything at all familiar?

I think that rather than a Hawkes you have a John S. Purdy late-production Prince's Protean. That makes your pen a wonderful find indeed. I am a frightful shade of envious green.

Take care,

Rob Astyk

[djohannsen]

here are the pics i have of the pen George

<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj7"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj8"></center>

 

Very interesting...   So I take it that this is some sort of ink shut-off?

<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...esj9"></center>
<center><img src="http://www.volcano.n...sj10"></center>

 

A telescoping syringe filler!  

This pen is really something!  I'm sure that I'll never have the privilege of owning a pen like this (I'm a collector with pretty shallow pockets), so thanks for posting the additional photos.


Dave

PS: There is an E.S. Johnson #4 nib (needs a bit of work) on eBay right now.

[Rob Astyk]

Hi, George,

What do you think?

Rob Astyk

[rhr]

Rob is right, Lex.  Looking at these pics of what's inside the cap and what's under the nib, it's obvious that it's a Prince's Protean outfitted with a Johnson nib, another rare and early pen.

George Kovalenko.

[djohannsen]

Very interesting...   So I take it that this is some sort of ink shut-off?

 

I just read Ron's collection of articles and advertisments on the Prince's Protean, and am now a bit more enlightened.  So, the valve under the nib is to allow the user to regulate the ink flow - quite neat.  I also thought that the cautionary note in the Prince's Protean advertising was quite interesting (that there was a metal pen sold by "imposters" that was marked as Prince's Protean).

Thank you to everyone who helped me learn so much in this thread.  Ron, I am very excited about reading your article next month on E.S. Johnson - another chance to learn some more!


Dave

[Vintagepens]

Here's another picture of an early E.S. Johnson fountain pen, also unmarked save for the nib.
Johnson pen
Note the two-step section and the very simple feed design.
feed detail
feed detail from above, nib removed

Incidentally, I remain uncertain about the identity of the pen shown in Lex's pictures (which is presently also in my collection).  I have a Hawkes flyer that shows a very Protean-like ink shutoff on the feed, even though such a feature doesn't seem to appear in Hawkes' patent drawings.  I've also been trying to figure out for some years why another very Protean-like pen is shown in the form of a drawing the Pierre Haury book over the name "Johnson" with a date in the 1860s.  It does not appear to come from the Cantor Lectures, nor from any patent I've been able to find.  I also wonder if others may have stepped in and copied once the Prince patents expired, which would have taken place sometime in the 1870s.

I do have one other pen that is securely a Protean, as it is imprinted (faintly) on the hard rubber, and carries an original Prince nib.  But I also have yet another that is unmarked, though very similar in form and construction.

[djohannsen]

Here's another picture of an early E.S. Johnson fountain pen, also unmarked save for the nib.

 

Thank you Mr. Nishimura (or is it Dr. Nishimura?) for taking the time to post these pictures and the accompanying discussion.  The longer that I collect, the more interested I become in the smaller manufacturers and the very early pens.  Your post has helped me learn a bit about both of these topics.

[rhr]

I've also been trying to figure out for some years why another very Protean-like pen is shown in the form of a drawing in the Pierre Haury book over the name "Johnson" with a date in the 1860s.

David, thanks for the clue.  So this pen definitely isn't Hawkes's patent 50,470, and neither is it one of Prince's patents 8,399, 12,301, or 13,995.  I started looking in the 1860s patents right away, and within a few minutes found the answer, I think.  Your pen, which used to be Lex's pen, is a Hermann Madeheim patent.  Madeheim had three patents, 57,162, 220,483, and 293,759, all for various types of piston fillers with ink-shutoff valves in the feeds, and a slot in the end of the cap to facilitate turning the cock valve.  Neither the Hawkes patent nor any of the three Prince patents has this ink-shutoff valve feature.   The Hawkes patent has a slot in the end of the cap to facilitate removing the feed for filling, and the Prince pen may have used the Madeheim valve through a licensing arrangement. Depending upon what type of piston your pen has, it's probably one of the two later Madeheim patents.  The first patent has a sleeve piston, the second patent has a hollow piston rod, and the third patent has a detachable piston rod.  I'd say yours is based on the second Madeheim patent.

I then went to the Haury & Lacroux book and looked for your reference, but I didn't find just one drawing with the caption "Johnson".  I found two.  Neither of them is dated in the 1860s, and neither of them is a Johnson patent or assignment.  One is dated 1855, and the other 1856.  Luckily I didn't see these dates at first, and didn't start looking in the 1850s to start off with, otherwise I might not have found the Madeheim patents.  Just to make sure that we're on the same page, I found the two drawings on p.33 of the English translation by Fred Gorstein.  I think the 1855 drawing is of the second Prince patent, and the 1856 drawing is the one to which you're referring.  I think that date might be a misprint for 1866, the date of the first Madeheim patent, but the drawings are less-sophisticated versions of his third patent from 1884, the one with the detachable piston rod.  Also, the Prince patents may have expired sometime in the 1870s, but John S. Purdy was the agent for the pen from the 1870s up to at least the 1880s, and perhaps as late as 1890.

But here's the best clue of all.  The second Madeheim patent was assigned to George F. Hawkes, so Hawkes may have been the maker of the hard rubber parts for your pen, and E.S. Johnson may have been the maker of the nib and the one who marketed the pen.  And most tantalizing of all, perhaps some of the so-called Prince pens are actually not Prince pens, if Prince didn't license this ink-shutoff feature from Madeheim or Hawkes.  The ones with ink-shutoff valves are either Madeheim or Hawkes or Johnson pens, and the only true Prince pens are the piston pens without any ink-shutoff valve at all.  So, does your "Protean"-imprinted pen have an ink-shutoff valve?

George Kovalenko.

[Vintagepens]

We'll get this figured out yet!

A remaining question in my mind is how the Haury illustrations ended up with the Johnson caption.  Random error?  Or reflective of some source that brought together all these players?

I'll have to get pics up of the Hawkes flyer I mentioned, and of the Prince's patent pens.  If I recall correctly, both have the ink shutoff and matching slotted cap-top.  One is actually imprinted, with a Prince nib; the other is unmarked and came nibless.

[rhr]

A remaining question in my mind is how the Haury illustration ended up with the Johnson caption.

Could the 1856 drawing possibly be an illustration from a British, or French, or German patent for the pen, if there were one?

I'll have to get pics up of the Hawkes flyer I mentioned, and of the Prince's patent pens. 

I look forward to the pictures.  In the meantime, here's another Hawkes and Madeheim connection, with the two of them as co-patentees on patent no. 223,644 for a piston-filled stylograph.

With all the online databases out there, it's quickly becoming a golden age of research.  And good-quality, detailed pictures without any Photoshop bells-and-whistles enhancements are one of the best tools of the researcher in the age of the Web.

George Kovalenko.

[Vintagepens]

Rather belatedly, here's a Prince's Protean ad from the January 1860 issue of The Ladies' Wreath, published in NYC:

Prince's Protean ad

EDIT: And here's a picture of the Hawkes flyer:

Hawkes flyer

[rhr]

David, those are great ads. Thanks for posting the images.

It's curious how all pens from a certain era always resemble one another. It's as if there were an unspoken agreement that that was the form they should take. Or maybe one form came along, and everyone else imitated it as a model, in order to compete with it. Just look at the MacKinnon stylograph from the 1870s-80s imitated exactly by the Cross stylo. And the Waterman's pens from the 1880s and 1890s imitating, or imitated by everyone else, and the slip-cap eyedroppers from the 1900s-10s, and all the Duofold-look-alikes from the 1920s, and the streamlined pens from the 1930s. To take a much more recent example from 1985 to 1995, just look at the Pelikan 800, the Parker Centennial Duofold, the Waterman Le Man 100, the and Montblanc Hemingway. Here are the design patents for the Cent. Duofold and the Le Man 100, D330,217 and D280,737.

Just rambling . . .

George Kovalenko.

[Ron Dutcher]

David, those are great ads. Thanks for posting the images.

It's curious how all pens from a certain era always resemble one another. It's as if there were an unspoken agreement that that was the form they should take.
Just rambling . . .

George Kovalenko.

Hey Guys,

Yes David, thanks a lot for posting those ads.  Perhaps this shows how much I need to get out, but you made my day.

As for George's ponderings.  My thinking was that the earliest fountain pens and stylos were trying to mimic the common slide dip pens and magic pencils that preceded them.   I wonder what these early manufacturers would think if you handed them one of our modern Krones.

Stay Well

Dr. Ron Dutcher
www.kamakurapens.com

[rhr]

My thinking was that the earliest fountain pens and stylos were trying to mimic the common slide dip pens and magic pencils that preceded them.

And that's also the point of the taper cap on pens like the Waterman's #20 series. It's meant to make the pen look and feel like a penholder, or dip pen, or straight pen.

George Kovalenko.

[Vintagepens]

Style, fashion -- whatever you want to call it -- has its own considerable momentum. Nor can one isolate pens or even writing instruments.  Each time and place has its own formal preferences.  Think of how pen design correlates to automotive design, for example.