Return to Wahl-Eversharp

10,000 Word

Maker: Eversharp (or perhaps Parker, if one wishes to be pedantic).

This strange object is the residue of the Eversharp pen colossus after it was bought out by Parker– it says Eversharp on the front of the cap, but Parker around the back.  There’s not a lot of information floating around about it– just getting the name sorted out was a great effort for the collected boffins of the Fountain Pen Network.  It comes from the very late 1950s, probably about 1958, as this is when the buy-out occurred, and it’s sort of a pre-cursor to the Parker 45— a relatively simple cartridge loading pen.  The name might be a play on the old “a picture is worth…” saying, but a slightly more sensible speculation (which I crib from the entry on different but equally oddball pen of that time over at is that it is suggestive of how much writing one might do out of a single cartridge.

It is about as good a pen as it looks– a reasonable steel point, a little easier to grip than a 45 thanks to a wider grip and the Baleen Whale texture of the section.  That texture is visible when the pen is capped, giving one some pause on the subject of the seal provided by the cap.  I also wonder whether that little Samurai court hat at the top of the cap isn’t meant to lead an observer into thinking it’s a ball-point rather than a fountain pen, which for me is a very sad statement about the nature of the pen business at the close of the ’50s.  The weirdness of the design is hard to photograph well, in that the point looks like it’s in upside down in what was meant to be a semi-hooded section.

Production Run: c. 1958 – c. 1959

Cost When New:  $1.98 (for modern value, try this calculator).

Size: 13.0 cm long capped, 13.0 cm posted, 12.5 cm uncapped.

Point: Steel.

Body: Polystyrene.

Filler: Cartridge, capacity approx. 1.2 ml (same one as Parkers use).

Eversharp 10,000 Word Pen

The original packaging - notice the Parker cartridge



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.

Permanent link to this article: