top of page
Pelikan 100/100N barrel variation
Here, the variation of Pelikan 100/100N barrels is focused on.
-
As to material, it has been said that the barrel was made of celluloid (cellulose nitrate) until the material was replaced with acrylics in 1940. But, according to @stoen, there existed uncommon barrels made of cellulose acetate⁽¹⁾(e.g. model 100 in the 3rd generation (Fig.1), model 100N (Fig.2)). So celluloid and cellulose acetate coexisted for years. In 1939-1940, Günter Wagner utilized cellulose acetate for other parts (e.g. sections, barrels) to replace ebonite as the company did so with celluloid. But, beginning in 1940, acrylics took over celluloid / cellulose acetate in a stepwise manner.
-
When celluloid barrels were introduced for model 100 in 1931, they were free form protection rings (Fig.3-1). The barrel soon got reinforced with brass rings (Fig.3-2). Model 100N had the reinforcing rings from the beginning. But, there exist 100/100N/101N barrels without ring (Fig.4 middle, Fig.5, Fig.6 bottom, Fig.7). Without ring, the barrel is less resistant to crack, but sleeve looks tidy or clear⁽¹⁾. When acrylics barrel was introduced, reinforcing ring was not mounted anymore.
-
There exist barrels coated with white paint so that base barrel color would not show through the sleeve, most of which I know are tortoise shell model 100/101N (Fig.4 middle, Fig.5, Fig.6 bottom).
-
Model 100N produced in Milan also can be called "variants" in every sense.
-
Fig.8 is Pelikan 101N with short cap top which has the one-piece barrel. Interestingly, this pen has no nib collar and nib and feeder are just friction fit mounted to the section.
Note;⁽¹⁾Please compare the first year 101N and the 2nd year 101N (Fig.6).
⁽²⁾According to @stoen, some obvious advantages of cellulose acetate over cellulose nitrate are:
-
possibility of both injection molding and machining
-
being less flammable and more chemically stable
-
being mechanically less brittle and less prone to discoloration
-
not crystalizing at the junction with ebonite after more than 50 years (this is what we know now!).
Yet, it was a rather expensive and highly decorative material, so it’s unlikely that inner parts would be made from it (@stoen).
bottom of page