Maker: Art Brown (but not really)
This is a rather later example of the safety pen. I say this not because of any known date on it, but because of the efforts to emulate other pens of a known era. The clip looks very like a 1940\’s Waterman, while the conical jewels at either end are very like what high-end Parker Vacumatics were wearing in the late \’30s and early \’40s. I will admit to a bit of confusion about the exact dating– if the clip is in fact meant to look like a Waterman, it almost has to be 1940s, but as it\’s made in Japan and being retailed by an American store, it also certainly can\’t be from any point between 1942 and 1945. I have seen pictures of this pen with the clip marked \”BOSEN\”, but that hasn\’t produced any real leads. Assuming I\’m anywhere near the correct date, this is a very late manifestation of a mechanism that most companies had abandoned by 1930.
There are no hints on the box as to precise date. Since Art Brown is still a going concern, I suppose I could write them and see if they still have records, but it\’s more fun and less effort to speculate (update; well, that stopped being true in 2013). Also a point of speculation is why the box calls this pen, which even by 1935 was desperately outdated technology, an \”Artists\’ Pen\”– my currently competing theories are: it was cheap enough for an artist to afford (the $4.95 on the box is in ball-point, and obviously not contemporary with the pen); artists have an awareness of their tools and won\’t hold it the wrong way up during the dangerous transitional moments; nobody thinks twice about an artist who\’s covered in ink.
Production Run: Updates as they occur– somewhere between 1930 and 1950.
Size: 12.0 cm long capped, 14.8 cm posted, 11.7 cm uncapped and deployed (9.9 cm with the point run in).
Point: It\’s stamped \”Highgrade Superior Ideal Pen\”, so it must be good, but I rather think it\’s plated steel.
Filler: Eyedropper, capacity approx. 1.5 ml.
If you are relying on the preceding information to win a bet or impress a teacher, you should read the site\’s scholarly caveat. Remember, this is the internet, and it\’s full of bad information.