Some time ago I wrote about a red and black hard rubber Primo pen that I’d found. It was an interesting pen and like so many of the smaller, more obscure brands, I couldn’t find out anything about the company or their output. A few days ago, Steve Falkner told me he had another Primo, the Ladies’ Pen, as it is named on the box or The Dainty according to the barrel inscription. Steve very kindly sent me some photos and gave me permission to use them here.

“Dainty” immediately reminds us of “Dinkie” and that’s appropriate. Whoever began the fashion for tiny beautiful pens, Conway Stewart became the best known for it.

The pen is essentially two tubes, one of greater diameter than the other. That design, also used for the Conway Stewart Dinkies and the small Rosemary pens dates it to around 1930. The box, with its various fonts and its seal is a masterpiece of graphic design and the style coincides with that date. The manufacturers made a virtue of necessity in asserting that their “non-corrosive” nib is “as lasting as gold,” a claim similar to that made for the new Platignum range of pens around the same time. With its simple, clean lines and shocking striated pink, the Primo Dainty holds its own with its Rosemary and Conway Stewart competitors, even though it has a steel nib as against their gold ones.

So we know a little more about the Primo company. A short-lived and minor one, perhaps, as it turned out, but they made some very attractive pens. Thanks very much, Steve, for moving our knowledge forward a bit!

I’ve bought a few John Bull pens over the years and more often than not they’ve been a disappointment. The celluloid ones that I would guess are from the late thirties are good pens but the earlier black chased hard rubber ones seem flimsy to me and often the parts fit together ungraciously. So when I saw this pen and pencil set I debated with myself a little. At length I concluded that as they were clearly later and the price was good anyway, I might as well take a chance.

I’m glad I did. Though they’re not really exceptional in any way, they make a good set. The pencil works, the pen writes with a deal of line variation and the condition of both is good. The box is a smidgen tattered but it’s all there and the colours are quite dramatic!

If you do a web search on “John Bull Fountain Pen” you’ll find several conflicting opinions as to who made the John Bull pens. In every case, so far as I can see, opinion is all they are, without a shred of evidence one way or the other. The late and estimable Jonathan Donahaye, whose opinion I would usually implicitly accept, listed a John Bull pen that he believed may have been made by Conway Stewart. There are some resemblances but resemblance is no proof of provenance. Any of the pen manufacturers of the day could make a pen in any style, and a superficial resemblance to the the popular Conway Stewart would be a good way to sell pens. Wyvern and even Mabie Todd have been suggested – nay, asserted – to be the makers of John Bulls, as have De La Rue, with perhaps a shade more credibility.

This pen has more than a hint of the De La Rue about it. But there I go, falling into the same trap. Resemblance is no proof of provenance.  I could say, in complete accuracy, that there are stylistic resemblances to some some lesser De La Rues, and the quality is comparable with that of the non-Onoto De La Rues.  It’s the same fallacious logic as has misled others, though, and it won’t do.  We need a lot more than that to confidently say who made the John Bulls.   Sight of an old contract would be nice,  or maybe an order…

Quite a few No-Name mottled hard rubber nineteen twenties and thirties pens have been coming my way recently. This is a Very Good Thing as despite their variations, these pens usually share the characteristic of being well made. Mottled hard rubber comes in wide variety of patterns from the wholly abstract to quite convincing woodgrain, knots and all. The intensity of the colours varies too, partly through oxidisation over time but also because each MHR mix is a little different.

This beauty has a slightly Duofold-ish look to it, with its straight sides and milled clip screw. The clip once had gold plating but it is no more. The plating has held up better on the cap ring and the lever.

That lever with the little three-lobed dingus appears on a lot of no-name pens from this period. I assume that it’s an off-the-shelf part that manufacturers bought in, often to use on pens that would not bear their own name.

It’s always fun to try to spot resemblances that will enable us to identify the pen’s manufacturer. It’s a pretty fruitless exercise. That handsomely stepped section says “Burnham” to me, but who knows? The small warranted nib is a delight, being both broad and flexible.

We sometimes underrate pens because no manufacturer’s name is on the barrel but this pen, and others like it, compares well with the named output of many pen makers.

This beautiful Mottled Hard Rubber Bulb Filler sat in my repair line for quite a while. Restoring this kind of pen is straightforward, but the breather tube had snapped off and it was made from a thinner diameter of tube than any I had. I finally got a length of the right size last week and here the pen is, restored to its former glory.

Excuse the flash photography. I had a long day despatching sold pens and restoring a few more, so I hadn’t the energy to set up lights tonight. The flash exaggerates the difference between the hard rubber in the blind cap and the cap, but the difference is really there. This pen was made from three different pieces of hard rubber, if you count the section too. The mottled rubber in the cap is especially beautiful:

Whoever made the National Security Vis-A-Tank that I wrote about back here: http://wp.me/p17T6K-f0 probably made this pen too. There are many resemblances, particularly the amber ink-view barrel. It may well be that the company made up these no-name pens to use up excess materials. While clearly not expensive pens, quality control has been maintained: these are as well made as pens that doubtless cost several times as much. And, in my opinion at least, the result is an outstandingly attractive pen.

I recently bought a job lot of fountain pens and mechanical pencils. There were a few interesting writing instruments among the lot, some of which will turn up here soon. One unexpected thing was this Osmiroid 65 still in its original packaging. I discussed Osmiroids in general terms back here: http://wp.me/s17T6K-osmiroid and I illustrated that article with a picture of an Osmiroid 75. This pen I have today is the earlier lever-fill No 65.

I don’t have exact dates for the Osmiroid 65 and 75. My husband, who started school in 1955, remembers the 65s being used then or soon after, so it seems that this unused example has been around for fifty years or more.

Normally, new old stock pens will disappear into a collector’s cabinet never to be inked. They fetch a premium as perfect examples of their kind. With an Osmiroid, I suspect the rules will be a little different. While the fact that it is “new” and in pristine condition will still be appreciated, the buyer is likely to be a calligrapher rather than a collector, and the pen will certainly be inked and used.

The left oblique italic nib is a beautiful thing, and one of the less common Osmiroid nibs. I haven’t seen one before.