|
|
|
|
|
Surely Not!? A Hack Amateur Deconstruction of a Pen Myth by David R. Isaacson |
 |
| Let's start with the
simple. The Wahl-Eversharp Doric series was produced from
1931-1940 or so, comprises a nifty bunch of pens, has a large collector
base, was the most expensive Wahl for most- perhaps all- its run,
and perhaps is best known for its faceted barrel and cap.
Thus, this writer was most surprised to see a pen offered for sale
online as a round (in cross section) late
Wahl Doric. But any collector occasionally can mislabel a
pen for sale. However, more surprising still, was the subsequent net chat
which seemed to suggest that some collectors of Wahls indeed embrace the
notion that a non-faceted (round) Doric is a correct and real model.
Let us say that doubts exist about that view. Let us say that those doubts
were shared by me. Indeed, the claim of a Round Doric leaves me queasy
with visceral unease. On the other hand, my visceral unease is not
a formal proof dismissing this nomeclature for the pen. Let's
be clear. The pen exists. It is the naming of it that raises doubt.
I do not favor lumping any round Wahl in with the Dorics. My reflexive response would be, "You've got to be kidding! Dorics are faceted. Any round pen cannot be a Doric!". That response might or might not be true, but I would prefer something stronger than "Obviously, this cannot be" when addressing a strongly-held collector perspective. I'm not George, willing to simply dismiss the observations of those around me. I emphasize that in prior chat no one offered evidence that Wahl formally identified this pen to be a Doric. Indeed, no one seemed to have any hard data about the pen. That offers challenges, since with many vintage pens for which we lack any/much data, collector convention indeed can name such items in retrospect. If this were the case for the Round Doric, I just believe this an awful choice of name for this model. Two approaches seem possible to disprove or at least disfavor the Round Doric. One is to provide strong contextual information suggesting the pen is better grouped with other Wahls. Given that no hard data has been offered pro or con regarding the name of the pen, discussing the context of the pen is a legitimate approach. The second approach is to offer hard data from Wahl disfavoring the use of Round and Doric together. The second approach of course is the stronger. And, it is where this essay will head... eventually. Our purpose here is to provide evidence disfavoring the use of "round Doric" as a descriptor for any pen in the Wahl-Eversharp line. Along the way, we will touch upon some of the thorny issues of Wahl nomenclature- just for fun of course- and view images of other Wahl Doric and non-Doric lines from the mid-late 1930's. Shown below is a colorized catalog image of the pen under disussion- the so-called Late Round Doric. It has plunger-fill mechanism and sports un-Doric-like triple cap rings. This.. i say THIS... is a Doric??? |
 |
| Context counts, and
the reader of this missive needs to know a few basic Wahl issues
and a few of my philosophical ground rules.
First, I'm no expert in things Wahl, though I own many, have bought and sold more, and have a general and minimal necessary understanding of the value/scarcity stratification for many of the 1930's pens. Let us say... a motivated hack amateur newbie. Second, Wahl jargon- as used in pendom today- is a bit hazy... mixing modern terms used in retrospect with original (evidence based) nomenclature. Casual discussion often does not differentiate retrospective vs original nomenclature, thus muddying the waters. A hard ground-up look at Wahl models- skipping names used routinely in books and websites- probably is in order. But, not today. Third, I believe that many model names ascribed to Wahl pens within pendom are used loosely at best. Fourth, recall that Wahl made many different series of pens using a similar general contour, from 1930-1940. Fifth, for pens lacking hard data, i suggest it is better to err in a conservative fashion, hesitating to lump a given unnamed pen with named models, than to assume a connection. Sixth, we note that catalog and advert data are not considered definitive by many collectors. Artistic license- both in text and images- was used in such paper. One piece to the next can present apparent contradictions. Errors happen. Still, such data at least give us a starting point on the quest for precision. Seventh, pendom features Lumpers vs Splitters, Generalists vs Specialists, and Forest-viewers vs Blinded-by-the-Trees types. Obsessing on minutiae is not always a good thing, but clarifying muddy jargon- at least to provide a baseline for future reference- probably is a good thing. In truth, most of us mix a bit of each category into our cocktail of collecting. Below are shown some definite Doric pens. Catalog data exist to label these pens by that name. The pens in this pic are- to this author at least- First Generation models, representing the first couple-few years of production and employing locales for model names- eg. Morocco. The earliest adverts (1931) for these emphasize the faceted shape. The first catalog showing them- I believe dating to 1932- emphasizes the faceted shape. The collector is advised to watch for cap cracks and for crazing and flourescence which can mark impending discombobulation. Later pens feature different cap-ring style and a cross-hatched plastic. |
 |
| Shown below is a rather
shrunken picture of a large array of what I consider the second generation
of Droic. These sport faceted caps and barrels of course, The colored pens
have a cross-hatched celluloid pattern in several colors. Gold Seal (high
line) pens feature different cap-bands from the first generation pens.
Some carryover of first generation styling does happen with the lower line
models. I don't know the run time for the 2nd Gen pens. Probably 1935-1940
or so, but don't hold me to that.
Side point: At risk of stirring the pot for a future essay, even these pens offer certain challenges. I examined just three or so adverts showing these later Dorics. Weirdly, only the non-gold-seal pens even are called Doric! The numerous gold-seal pens below are called... Gold Seal pens. Perhaps sometime we can address whether Wahl stopped using the Doric name for the high line pens, returning to the tried and true Gold Seal descriptor. Does pendom wrongly label these pens, too, as Doric? Well, i suspect info exists that justifies formally the Doric name on these gold seal pens and that my minimal formal research simply has not shown that data yet. And, to the degree that in retrospect we try to lump pens into digestable data chunks, calling these pens Doric is highly reasonable, even if Wahl did not. However, the case is different for the evil so-called Round Doric which prompted this essay. |
 |
| We do know that many
pens produced by Wahl from 1930 to 1940 share shape largely in common with
the Doric, save that all those other pens are not faceted. Doric
and non-Doric alike feature gently streamlined caps and barrels ending
in abruptly blunted/beveled ends. This is the general look for ten
years worth of Wahl pens. Being a streamlined and end-blunted Wahl is not
sufficient to be a Doric. Otherwise, numerous other clearly-named
pens by Wahl would suddently be reassigned to the Doric category. Is it
not rediculous to rename to Doric the Bantam, the Equi-Poised
and
maybe-Equi-Poised pens, the Oxford, the Junior,
the
Pacemaker and the
Airlight? Of course it is. Indeed,
the so-called Round Doric has more in common with those models than
it does with the Doric, proper. The difference perhaps is that all the
other streamlined pens just cited have some catalog/advert data available
to us, whilst the Round Doric remains a mystery.
Below, see another pen with the typical streamlined/blunted 1930's Wahl contour. No Wahl collector with whom i've chatted considers this pen to be a Doric. Indeed, the barrel imprint disfavors Doric-hood. If this pen- for which i've not seen vintage data- is not a Doric, why would the first pen shown at the start of the essay be one? |
 |
| Nature abhors a vacuum.
So too it seems do pen collectors. Absenting hard data, we tend to lump
pens with other better-known models, we create descriptive retrospective
names, and we tend to attribute extra cachet to things that charm
us.
We lack hard data for many of the mid-late 1930's Wahl pens. Certainly we lack data for many of the sub-doric models. Perhaps, though, we should use mid-late 1930's non-Doric rather than sub-Doric, as we don't wish to insult the wee things. To call any Wahl a Doric is to attribute significant cachet to that pen. Doric was better than non-Doric in the Wahl world. Or so we believe. I assert that non-faceted mid-late 1930's Wahl-Eversharp pens are not Dorics. I assert that the pen shown in the first picture- a pen of decent quality and charm- is mislabelled by those who would call it a Doric, even if it is of Doric-level quality. I assert it is better to lump such a pen- if lumping must be done- with the non-Doric pens of the era. I assert that to call such a pen a Doric- particularly any sort of odd Doric, is to attribute undue cachet to it. I am happy to report having found data to back my claims. Such data might not be definitive, but they are perhaps helpful. If we had no paper data about the tiny Wahl Bantam, shown below, would folks suggest calling it the odd vestpocket round Doric?? |
 |
| Below see advert images of two more Wahl 1930's pens. The Pacemaker in particular is a lovely pen of decent construction. It and the Air-Lite feature the usual streamlined shape with beveled ends, for which Wahl from this era is so well known. If we lacked catalog info on these, would folks suggest they be lumped with the faceted Doric? Again, is it lack of data that leads some to consider the pen in the very first image- way above- to be a Round Doric? Is it the decent quality of that pen? Is it the relative scarcity? Is it a desire to add cachet? Is it a failed (IMHO) effort at retrospective lumping? |
 |
| Here see an actual Pacemaker. This is a gorgeous pen. The collector is advised to watch for flourescence of the ends, usually a sign of incipient discombobulation. Ebay ads noting "blue pen with pink endjewels" should be viewed with horror. The Pacemaker seems to share much with the desirable metal capped or all-metal Coronet series. It can be found at least in Brown, Blue, Green and Black.. But, it is not a Doric. |
 |
| So far, we've built a case
for what perhaps are minimal criteria for Doric-hood, and have shown
numerous examples of non-Dorics. We've even raised the question that some
"obvious" Dorics- the 2nd Generation cross hatched gold-seal pens, might
not have been called Doric by Wahl. We've shown that the so-called
RoundDoric
has well more in common with the non-Doric than with the Doric. The key
assertion has been that no non-faceted pen is a Doric. I suggest that the
tendency to label the pen in the first picture as Doric stems from lack
of available data about it, from it claimed good quality, and from collector
tendencies to lump data. I have claimed "new" data to back my assertions.
No doubt, the reader wishes to see that data. The reader has been patient.
Here is that data.
We see a full page catalog ad, below. It is from a jeweler's wholesale catalog for 1938, copyrighted 1937. Running in vertical fashion across the top of the page are 5 Doric models, at least pens about which most collectors would agree are Dorics. All are faceted, though we note that all but the most junior model (itself featuring earlier-style plastic) are NOT called Doric in this page. Whether some of the faceted pens we call Doric were not called that by Wahl is an interesting side question, but we will save that for another day. Below those pens are three pens shown in the horizontal. Starting at the price point of the most humble Doric showing, and descending from there, we have the 1) Vacuum Model , 2) The Junior Model and 3) the Oxford Model. By 1937 Oxford indeed is humble, though i believe some of the earlier versions of the Oxford were pens of more substance. Rather than showing any Round Doric pen, this ad introduces to us Wahl Eversharp's VACUUM MODEL. The Vacuum Model is the pen called a Round Doric by some, which is shown in the first pic way above, and which was the stimulus for this essay. Note, too that one cannot construe a possible interpretation in which the Vacuum Model implies "Vacuum filling Doric, vs other non-Vac-fill Dorics" as the pens shown at the top (faceted Dorics) also employ vac-fill systems. Thus, the pen shown at the top of this essay- called a round Doric by some, indeed should be called a Wahl Eversharp Vacuum Model, just another round non-Doric from the late 1930's. Do peruse this image at length. More images will follow. |
 |
| It is possible to overread
and to underread advertising pages. As noted previously, artistic license
was taken with both text and pictures in such material. In some cases,
one ad to the next seem to offer up conflicting accounts. Ads for the wholesale
trade perhaps took additional liberties with nomenclature.
Still, the three lower-line pens shown above are separated away from the faceted pens. They all have model names that do not include "Doric". We have established that most if not all of Wahl's 1930-40 product line featured a similar general contour- gently streamlined caps and barrels with abruptly beveled ends, with only the Doric also featuring a faceted shape. We now have catalog data calling the pen under discussion by a non-Doric name. Those who wish to use original nomenclature for this pen are invited not to call it a Round Doric. On the other hand, recognizing that one data source with potential flaws might not provide definitive guidance, i do invite the presentation of any period data supporting the notion that the Wahl Eversharp Vacuum Model is a Doric. In the picture below- from the same catalog- see a gift set of Vacuum Model pens. Again, no explicit or implied (IMHO) connection to Doric is provided. Indeed, roundness is emphasized. |
 |
| The pen under discussion-
now konwn to be called (at least once) the Vacuum Model by Wahl-Everhsarp-
appears to be a well constructed pen and to be the only one offered
in this catalog to feature a price getting into Doric territory.
I do not aggressively collect Wahl pens. I respect those who have noted
the pen is a decent model and one of interest to those who collect
this brand in comprehensive fashion. But, after an original and admittedly
reflexive dislike to lump this one with the Dorics, I am happy that a purchase
of emphera- which i had not expected to contain Wahl information-
should yield what is for me a treasure trove of Wahl data. This is a
nice pen. It is not a Doric.
The Vac Quack is not a Wahl expert. I make no pretense to sway people by citing such babble as "My Authority" in this (or any) arena. Heck, i only got into this essay after wondering for months why folks would call a round pen a Doric, followed by a stumble onto some actual data about it. Luck favors the foolish sometimes. Questions were raised in this research. I do own many Wahl Ads. I am amazed that gold seal cross-hatched second generation faceted pens (presumed Dorics in Amethyst and other colors) seem NOT to be called Doric in the ads to which i have access. In time, i'd like to find out if the later gold seal faceted pens actually are called Doric by Wahl- info is invited, heck it is requested! :-) More below... |
 |
| In time, i wish to readdress
the notion of the early Equi-Poised Wahls, to determine (after the last
chat in which Sid and David N contributed a great deal) if some of the
pens we take for granted as Equi-Poised, might not be that pen-
at least as treated in original Wahl nomenclature. Indeed the top pen in
the picture below- in Tunis color- often is labelled an Equi-Poised. The
best vintage pen websites sell them as such. Indeed, it is not clear that
ANY of the three pen shown below ever were called Equi-Poised by Wahl.
As always the need for retrospective convention in naming such pens might
allow for that title for this pen. Still, it would be nice to tease convention
from historical information.
More exploration is needed of Wahl's "Gold Seal" descriptor for pens. Gold Seal in some cases we might wish to use in an exclusionary fashion, employing it as a name and implying the pen is nothing else but a Gold Seal. In other cases the Gold Seal descriptor might be seen as just an addition to other model nomenclature. Contrary and expanding views are invited. Folks who have more data from this era are invited to share. I own probaby 10 original pen catalogs, 30 catalog duplicates and 250 pen ads (well sorted!). I am not a knowledge hoarder. Let's hear some more about these. Apologies for typos. Two hours and Mochachino in Starbucks limits proofreading ;-) Corrections and suggestions will be added as needed. regards
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
