With "Pelikan thermic-regulator" invented by Theodor Kovács⁽¹⁾ (Pelikan-collectibles.com)(Fig.1), Pelikan started to develop a novel fountain pen as the new flagship. Finally, on September 2nd, 1958, Pelikan presented model P1 that was innovative in both construction and design (Pelikan Schreibgeräte). Although the piston filler mechanism and screw-in cap mechanism were unchanged from model 400NN, P1 had many changes.

​

• Model name: First of all, the pen had a unique model name. As far as I surveyed, there is no source that mentioned what P1 was derived (there is a discussion in Ravens March Fountain Pens). In Pelikan catalog No.100A/4 (1962), P1 was advertised as "Füllhalter P1"on the top of the catalogs, while 400 series were only "Standard-Füllhalter". Pelikan likely regarded P1 as the flagship, and named "P1" with the meaning that it is the No.1 of (modern) Pelikan fountain pens. As described below, there are two types of P1 with different caps: for P1 with a rolled gold cap, RG (rolled gold) was placed after the model name, and named "P1 RG", while that with silvexa (nickel silver) cap was called "P1 S".Pelikan had model 550 mechanical pencil and model 555 ballpoint pen, corresponding to model 520 with a rolled gold cap, a higher model of 400, but when P1 was introduced, they were renamed 550 RG and 555 RG, respectively (August 4, 1959). Thus, they became the corresponding mechanical pencil and ballpoint pen to P1. This also suggests that Pelikan had placed P1 on top of 400 series. For the pens of following  generations, their model numbers had one, two three, or four digits. Alphabet(s) were placed before the model number to denote the filling system (and the grade of the fountain pen) (e.g. MK30, P490, L5. M7000). "P" denoted "Patronen-Füllsystem"(cartridge filler system), while "M" denoted "Mechanik-Kolbenfüllsystem" (mechanical piston filler system). As P1 had a piston filler system, Pelikan probably named it (and P15/P25) in a different way from the subsequent models (there is also a discussion in Ravens March Fountain Pens).

• Hooded nib and Pelikan thermic-regulator: P1 had Pelikan's unique "hooded nib system" that was newly developed for the model. Hooded nib system was introduced by Parker in 1941 to prevent their new super-chrome ink "Quink" from clogging pens because it dried so fast (Parkerpen.com). The pen was such a big success, many other manufacturers made their own hooded nib systems⁽¹⁾. Even though Parker stopped making the original Parker 51 in 1973, (semi-)hooded nib system were still in production. There is no doubt that P1 was inspired by Parker 51, but the design and technology were truly unique to P1 (Pelikan Schreibgeräte).

  • As shown in Fig.6-1, the nib of P1 was much smaller than 400NN (as is the case with other hooded nibs, the nib is only visible a few millimeters from the section, so it is impossible to imagine the actual size and shape of the nib by appearance alone). The nib had a short narrow slit to lead ink to the tip, but there was no vent hole. The nib had an inscription "Pelikan 14C-585" on the upper side (there were no nib specification on it). But when the nib is inserted into the section, the inscription is hidden under the section (Fig.7).

  • P1 also featured the new ink feed system called "Pelikan thermic-regulator". “Theodor Kovács had developed a new internal ink feed with an additional large reservoir for excess ink (Pelikan-collectibles.com)". At first glance, the feed itself is much longer than that of 400NN, but its structure appears much simpler than 400NN: there is a compensation chamber (ink reservoir) (Fig.8-1) at the top of the feed, but no fins (lamellae) to hold the excess ink, no grooves for ink and air channel (the structure of the product feed appears to be somewhat simpler than the figure in the patent)(Fig. 2). There is a secret in the section. Fig.2, 3, 4 show that there are two cylindrical tubes with holes that surround the feed. This gap between the section and the tubes (Fig.3) seems to serve a large additional compensation chamber. Ink that reaches the feed is delivered to the nib by capillary action created by the nib and the feed. So feed itself did not need a dedicated ink channel. There is a hole at the end of the feed (Fig.8-2). By inserting a special tool (screw rod) (Fig.9) into this hole and pulling it out, the feed (and nib) can be removed. In fact, this hole extends further back, through the compensation chamber of the feed, out into the additional compensation chamber (Fig.3-1, 3-2, 8-3). So, this hole is also a main air channel and serves as an air intake during writing (Fig.3-1). There is also a groove on the underside of the feed (Fig. 8-2), which seems to be an auxiliary air channel. In General, when the air pressure in the ink chamber increases due to the heat of the hand, ink is pushed into the feed, and when the external air pressure decreases, ink is pulled into the feed, both of which can easily cause ink leakage. In P1, changes in heat and air pressure seems to be buffered by the large ink reservoirs as stated above, where excess ink is stored. Thus, ink does not leak from the nib under different circumstances. Please note that "it is important, after filling the reservoir, to drain 6 to 8 drops of ink and screw the piston seal back on while holding the nib upward. This will clear the compensation chamber of the thermic-regulator, and this can immediately control the ink flow. With the nib cleaned, the pen is ready."(the user's instruction)(FountainPen.it).

  • While removing the feed required a special tool, setting the feed and nib in the section requires no special tool. Just set the nib in position over the feed and gently insert it into the section, taking care so that the nib doesn't shift (Fig. 8-4). Then, the nib is "hooded" (Fig. 7) by the section. The nib is only fixed between the section and the feed by friction, so it is possible (or easy) to remove only the nib and change it to other nib (I don't know if Pelikan recommended it). The section covers and presses the nib from above and prevents the nib from flexing and separating from the feed when writing. As stated above, this helps the nib to be resistant to drying out. Moreover, the position of the nib and feed in relation to the section is always constant, so there is no need to worry about the nib shifting, as was the case with previous pens. Also, there is no longer a need to worry about the collar cracking like in 400NN. The nib, with its curved shape, its short slit, the lack of a vent hole, and the way it is fixed into the section hardly flexes, and, together with the excellent feed, ensures a constant ink flow. There are few room to adjust the writing feel. In general, the writing feel is harder than 400NN. This seems to be rather what Pelikan wanted, as it would have been easier to write for users accustomed to ballpoint pens.

• Cap: Many innovations were also made in the cap.

  • The cap consists of four parts (a metal cap tube, an inner cap, a clip, and a crown that holds those three parts in place) (Fig. 10). There were two types of cap tubes, one in rolled gold metal (P1 RG) and the other in silvexa (nickel silver) (P1 S). Their corresponding clips are in rolled gold metal ans in silvexa, respectively. The cap tube is bent inward at the cap top end, and has three cutouts at 1 o'clock, 6 o'clock, and 11 o'clock (Fig. 11). What this means can be seen when the cap is assembled. The inner cap has a pointed cap top, which reminds us of 400NN, but unlike 400NN, the cap top doesn't have Pelican logo on it, and there are two protrusions at its base at 1 and 11 o'clock (Fig. 12 arrow head) and a cutout at 6 o'clock (Fig. 12 arrow). When assembling the cap, the inner cap is inserted into the cap tube so that the protrusions fit into the corresponding cutouts (Fig. 13). The clip also has a protrusion at its base (Fig. 15). The clip is to be set so that its protrusion fits into the 6 o'clock cutout in the cap tube and the inner cap (Fig. 17-1). Finally, turn the crown (Fig. 16) onto the screw at the base of the cap top firmly. This holds the cap tube, inner cap, and clip firmly in their respective positions and prevent them from wobbling. The clip does not rotate around the cap tube and the tip of the clip always comes to the "Pelikan" position on the cap tube edge (Fig. 17-2) (in 400NN, the clip was not secured against the cap tube).

  • As mentioned above, to close the cap, it is screwed into the section. However, that method differs from 400NN: the inner cap plays a main role. The inner cap is threaded on the inside (Fig. 18 arrowhead), and when the cap is turned, this engages with the outer thread of the section (Fig. 19) to hold the cap in place (in 400NN, the cap itself was threaded). In 400NN, the inner cap is simply pressed against the edge of the section when the cap is closed, but in P1, the inner cap and section are secured by the threads, thus making the nib more airtight. Moreover, in P1, gap between the inner cap and section is smaller than in 400NN (Fig. 20 top), making the nib more resistant to changes in air pressure. This would have reduced the risk of in-flight ink leakage. In addition, P1 had a "cap safety device": a metal ring is incorporated at the back of the inner cap threading, which acts as a clutch ring (Fig.18 arrow). There is a ring-shaped indentation at the end of the section threads (Fig. 19 arrow), and as the cap is turned to close, the metal ring snaps into this indentation (a clicking sound is heard). Thus, even if the cap is accidentally loosened, the clutch prevents the cap from coming off, and there is no danger of accidentally contaminating the pocket with ink. In line with the introduction of P1, cap safety device was also introduced in 400NN in 1958. When the cap is unscrewed, this ring is removed from the indentation, making a clicking sound is heard. The cap can be unscrewed in just half a turn, which makes it quick and easy to wright (Pelikan’s Perch).

  • When the cap is posted on the back of the pen, the inner cap (again, not cap tube) fits over the turning knob (Fig. 20 bottom). As the cap is designed so that its edge does not interfere with the barrel when closed or posted, the edge of the cap is less likely to scratch the barrel.

• Body: Like 400NN, the section and barrel were an integrated one piece body. When P1 was launched, it had a clutch ring stuck in the center (there is no indentation at the end of the section threads; Fig. 7), but this was discontinued the following year. The ink capacity was 1.5 ml, slightly less than 400NN (Pelikan-collectibles.com), but not small for its body size (Pelikan’s Perch).

  • One of the most different points from 400NN was the ink window, which consisted of four small, circular, transparent ink windows positioned close to the turning knob (Fig. 4, 21). Fig.4 may help understand why the ink window was placed in this position. My guess is that because of the long feed, it would have been difficult to create an ink window close to the section as in the 400NN, and that even if the ink window was placed just above the feed, the exact amount of ink remaining could not be determined because of ink stored in the large ink reservoirs when the pen is in a normal writing position. Even though it may be bothersome, if you turn the pen upward, you can definitely see the exact remaining ink directly above the piston seal (Fig. 4).

  • Other major changes were the shape of the section and the location of the threads that hold the caps in place. The section is protruding forward from the top to hold the nib in place and cover it (there were two different shapes of the tips depending on the production period) (Fig. 22). The forward shift of the position of threads would have greatly reduced the number of users whose fingers rest on the threads when writing (Fig. 23). As stated above, there was a ring-shaped indentation at the end of the section thread (Fig. 19 top arrow). These made steps in the section unavoidable, and (in my opinion) made it look less presentable than Parker 51. I guess Pelikan put function before appearance.

• Piston filler mechanism: P1 adopted a traditional piston filler mechanism, consisting of a turning knob, a spindle, a piston guide, and a piston rod (+piston seal) (Fig. 24, 25), with no major structural changes from the 400NN. Like 400NN, it was fixed to the barrel with a friction-fit. Unlike 400NN, the tip of the turning knob was fitted with a rolled gold ring or silvexa (presumably for decoration)(Fig. 26), which is paired with a crown at the tip of the cap. When the cap is posted, the inner cap fits here to hold the cap in place.

• Shape and appearance; The shape became slimmer and longer than 400NN. Together with hooded nib, it was in keeping with the tastes of the time. With cap closed, the overall body tapering gently from the center to each end. Both sides were symmetrical with pointed tips and metal crowns. There was no step between the barrel and the turning knob, all of which would have made the pen stylish. But Parker and Aurora have the edge in terms of the beauty of the shape when the cap is posted (it is just my opinion)(Fig.1). In P1 RG, with rolled gold cap and rolled gold rings on the both ends, the pen would have looked more luxurious than 400NN. 

​

Model P1 did not have major specification changes like 400N to 400NN, but it underwent at least two (three) minor specification changes before it was discontinued in 1963. Therefore, there were at least five types of P1s with different specifications in terms of details.

1. Initially there was a crutch ring in the center of the barrel that held the cap in place (presumably by friction-fit)(the first version), but it was moved inside the inner cap in April 1959 (Pelikan Schreibgeräte) (the second version).

2. Initially, the tips of the sections had a ridge, but in 1959, the tips of the sections were made smooth (the third version).

3. The nib was modified at some time point (probably after 1959). The late (modified) nib had slightly longer tines, and the visible area of the nib out of the section was increased slightly (Fig.6-2, 22) (the fourth version). This might have had some effect on the writing feel.

4. From 1958-1962, the cap engraving was a single line. In the last production period (1962-1963) the cap was engraved with two lines (Pelikan Schreibgeräte, Pelikan-collectibles.com)(the fifth version)(I don't have its image).

​

As I have mentioned, P1 had much more innovations than you might imagine. It was a well-designed and crafted fountain pen down to the last detail. In this sense, P1 was an exceptional pen. To give a few examples, the large capacity of compensation chambers would have allowed the nib to be resistant to changes in air pressure and heat, and the caps are also precision-made to prevent ink leakage. The enthusiasm of the Pelikan development team for this fountain pen is evident in the new model number system. Moreover, its derivative model for school pen (Pelikano) was the company's first cartridge/converter filler. In my opinion, modern Pelikan pens started from P1. Although special tools were required to remove the feed and filling mechanisms, this did not necessarily reduce maintainability. This would be rather what Pelikan wanted. It would be a precautionary measure to prevent end-users from easily tampering with or breaking the mechanism, as long as only experienced repair persons with tools could disassemble it for repair.

​

However, despite Pelikan's expectations, P1 did not seem to be as successful as Parker 51 (ironically, the Pelikano was a huge success). Was it a very innovative pen but failed to appeal to end-users? Were end-users not interested in the inner workings of the pen? Was it just unfortunate for P1 that fountain pens were entering a period of decline (Ravens March Fountain Pens)? P1 was discontinued in 1963, two years before of the discontinuation of 400NN.

 

P1 does not seem to have a high reputation among Pelikan fountain pens (Pelikan’s Perch), but if you are interested in it after reading this article, please pick one up.

​

Note;⁽¹⁾They were all referred to as "hooded nibs", but the shape of the nib and the ink supply system varied depending on the manufacturer. Other manufacturers included Aurora, Lamy, Waterman, De La Rue, Montblanc etc. (Fig.1). Pelikan was rather a latecomer in the field of hooded nib system.