Showing posts with label Parker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parker. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 19, 2025

The Corona Pen Company

Pencils marked for the Corona Pen Company in yesterday’s article (posted here) had me thinking about our collector’s lore, which teaches us that there was some unspecified relationship between Corona and the Parker Pen Company. 

Similar rumors had surrounded the Century Pen Company – fortunately, in the case of Century there were detailed shareholder records which detailed fully Parker’s involvement with Century (that was explored here at the blog in a three-part series beginning with “In the Footsteps of Giants,” June 9, 2020: Volume 6, page 163). I did not find a comparable treasure trove of corporate records with respect to Corona, but I did find enough to piece together a reasonably complete history of the brand.

The Corona Pen Company was named for Samuel V. Corona, an Austrian born on December 25, 1884 who immigrated to the United States in 1907, settling in Illinois. His granddaughter, Grace Willems, published this photograph of Samuel online:


Samuel entered into a partnership with James Pitt called the called the Janesville Tool Company “several years” before Samuel became involved in the penmaking industry, according to the Janesville Daily Gazette on August 28, 1922. The article credited Corona with designing parts for the Woodstock Typewriter Company; that detail caught my attention, since I also have a small collection of antique typewriters. Here’s my example of the Woodstock:


That detail sent me briefly down a rabbit hole of a tangent, since the name “Corona” associated with typewriters begs the question whether Samuel was involved with the Corona Typewriter Company, which merged with L.C. Smith & Bros. in 1926 to form Smith-Corona. As a general rule I do not believe in coincidences, but in this case I believe it was. The Corona Typewriter Company was originally organized as the Standard Typewriter Company in 1909 – in New York City, only two years after Samuel V. Corona had settled in the Midwest and without any indication that Samuel relocated to the east coast. In 1914, Standard’s name was changed to the Corona Typewriter Company . . . just because it was a cool name.

On July 15, 1921, Corona applied for a patent for a fountain pen, which was granted as number 1,540,763 on June 9, 1925. I described the patent as a “compound lever” fountain pen in American Writing Instrument Patents Vol. 2: 1911-1945, because turning the knob on the end of the barrel pushes down on an internal lever to compress the ink sac:


Samuel V. Corona filed a trademark registration application on behalf of the Corona Pen Company on December 26, 1922, in which Samuel claimed to have used the mark in commerce since February 25, 1922. 


The company may have been formed several months after Samuel began marketing his Corona pens: the announcement that Samuel Corona had formed the Corona Pen Company, was published in the Janesville Daily Gazette on August 28, 1922. Samuel was the president and Herman Stubbendick was the secretary; the “principal shareholder” in the new organization was Dr. E.H. Damrow, a prominent Janesville chiropractor:


According to a follow up article on October 14, the company settled into the Picknell Building at 22 North Academy Street, Janesville. The article repeats one important line . . . “No plans are being made to move away from here, Mr. Corona said.” Piecing the context together, it appears that the company’s prospects were so promising that Corona received three offers to relocate to other locations.


From the outset, Samuel’s interests were not limited to fountain pens. At the same time his Corona Pen Company was ramping up production, he also incorporated the Janesville Refrigerator & Pump Company, according to an announcement in Iron Trade on October 22, 1922:


By June of 1923, the company’s capital stock was doubled to raise capital for increased production. Three new directors were added to the board; while Samuel was still the president, new officers would be elected “in a few days,” according to the Janesville Daily Gazette on June 1, 2023:


Perhaps Samuel’s outside interests prevented him from focusing all of his energy on the Corona Pen Company. On August 10, 1923, Corona visited DeKalb, Illinois for a meeting with local inventor Clyde Morse, who had invented a new sash lock to be manufactured in Wisconsin – presumably by Corona’s partnership in the Janesville Tool Company:

Corona was replaced as president of the Corona Pen Company by Dr. Damrow, although he was re-elected to the board of directors, according to the Weekly Gazette on August 31, 1923:

By October 1923, the Corona Pen Company had absorbed the business of the Janesville Tool Company, advertising general toolmaking and light manufacturing services in the pen company’s name. This advertisement appeared in the Janesville Weekly Gazette on October 16, 1923:


Despite the company’s early promise, its diversification into general light manufacturing suggests that its fountain pens might not have been as profitable as news reports at the time suggested. Samuel may have been having financial difficulties: on November 10, 1923 the Janesville Weekly Gazette reported that one F.I. Wilbur had sued Corona and obtained a judgment for groceries:


On November 9, 1925 the Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin announced the formation of a new Corona Pen Co., with Dr. Damrow as one of its incorporators, along with W.W. Dale and A.H. Pember were also named. Dale was President of the Janesville Business College who also had a side job selling rebuilt typewriters; Pember was an opthamologist in Janesville. 


On November 17, the Platteville (Wisconsin) Journal and Grant County News reported that the company had invested in new machinery and was planning to move into new, larger quarters. “Many of Janesville’s most prominent professional men are interested in the company,” the article concludes:


That last statement may be the source of the theory that there was some connection between the Parker Pen Company and the Corona Pen Company, since it is difficult to imagine a group of “prominent professional men” in Janesville that did not include George S. Parker or anyone else affiliated with the Parker Pen Company. However, as of this writing I know of no shareholder records or other documentation to support that theory, so it is only speculation that there was any connection between the two companies other than their coincidental location in the same tiny Midwestern town.

That is not to say that there might not have been overlap between the Corona and Parker orbits. Two improvements to the Corona Pen’s basic design were patented by George Washington Gilman, both of which were applied for on November 27, 1926: number 1704,470 was granted on March 5, 1929 and number 1,726,432 was issued on August 27, 1929. Both patents were assigned to the Corona Pen Company:


Gilman’s name has come up before here at the blog: in “Checking Off the Boxes” (April 16, 2021: Volume 7, page 49) I explored Gilman’s patents for what would become the Parker Lucky Lock pencil, the earliest of which was applied for on November 7, 1921. Gilman’s patent for the Lucky Lock was assigned, “by mesne assignments” (that is, first to one company and then ultimately to another) to the Parker Pen Company; his later patents for a price band and the Lucky Lock’s clip, however, were assigned to American Metals Company, which had abruptly relocated from Attleboro, Massachusetts to – you guessed it – Janesville, Wisconsin in early 1922.

Was Gilman a Parker employee by 1926? I don’t think so. The later assignments of Gilman’s patents to American Metals Company suggest that American Metals remained his employer and continued to have an independent existence after the move to Janesville.

But, as always, there is more.

After the Corona Pen Company’s reorganization in late 1925, its principals decided to build a larger new factory in Antioch, Illinois. Plans were announced in the Waukegan News-Sun on July 8, 1927, in which the article states that the newly organized company was under the “leadership” of C.K. Anderson, described as an “Antioch financier.” Again, there is no mention of the Parker Pen Company.  On October 22, 1927, the Waukegan News-Sun reported that some of the Corona Pen Company’s equipment had been installed in the new factory.

Tragedy struck just a few month later. On February 20, 1928, fire broke out at the new factory in the celluloid curing room. Superintendent W.G. Baker immediately recognized the danger and ordered everyone to evacuate: without a moment to spare, employees rushed into the office area, which was sheltered from the factory by a brick wall. A few seconds later, the stored celluloid and guncotton exploded and completely destroyed the building. Miraculously, nobody was killed or seriously injured, but the loss reported was $50,000 – twice the $25,000 that it cost to build the factory just a few months earlier. The following account of the incident was published in the Libertyville (Illinois) Independent on February 23, 1928:


If that seems suspicious, things began to smell downright awful in the days after the explosion. On March 1, 1928, the McHenry Plaindealer reported that the total loss was covered by insurance and that a new factory would be built just as soon as the claim was settled with the insurance company. Vice President Walter R. Borman further stated that he already had architect’s plans for the new factory and had received “many bids” on the reconstruction:


Only eight days after the catastrophe, Corona Pen Company was publicly announcing it was doubling its money with the destruction of its new factory – miraculously, with no serious injuries – and that it already had architects and contractors lined up to spend the expected insurance payout. If that did not trigger the insurer’s fraud alerts, I don’t think anything would.

One good thing that came out of the explosion was that in response to the disaster, the Libertyville Independent reported on September 6, 1928 that the City of Antioch had enacted its first building code.

There is no report detailing when the new factory was finished and production was resumed, which is odd given the detailed coverage of Corona Pen’s activities prior to the disaster. The company did eventually rebuild, but apparently without insurance money: the Corona Pen Company was forced to secure a $40,780 loan from investment firm Runyard & Behanna on September 17, 1928.  The loan was payable in full by September 27, 1930, but by then Corona Pen might already have been gone. The McHenry Plaindealer reported on September 3, 1931, that the “abandoned Corona pen factory” had been looted, and a “large part” of the equipment and stock were taken.


Yeah, I smell a rat . . . again. Random thieves breaking into a pen factory filled with large equipment, tools, pens . . . everything one might need to start another pen company . . . when the pen company’s mortgage was nearly a year delinquent and its creditors were closing in . . . 

On January 28, 1932, the Waukegan News-Sun reported that a foreclosure decree had been rendered against the Corona Pen Company.


The notice of sheriff’s sale published in the Waukegan News-Sun on February 12, 1932 indicates that the Corona Pen Company’s factory was sold at auction on March 7, 1932. With that, whatever remained of the Corona Pen Company was gone. There is no evidence that the company's namesake, Samuel V. Corona, was involved with the company after the 1925 reorganization; he passed away on October 10, 1948.

So how do the examples of pencils offered by the Corona Pen Company from yesterday’s article fit into the story? All of the examples I have found were clearly made after the company was reorganized in late 1925: the Rex Manufacturing Company-made models all bear the 1926 patent dates, and those marked with the Antioch, Illinois location were made after the company relocated to Antioch in late 1927 - perhaps in those brief months before the explosion, or perhaps between the time the company reopened and when the company folded, likely in 1930 or 1931.

Perhaps both were sourced at the same time, and the Rex-made pencils may even have been sourced later than the Antioch-marked ones. Perhaps also the Antioch-marked examples were actually made by Rex, after Parker won its patent infringement case against Rex.

Was Corona related to Parker, other than their close proximity in Janesville for a few years? There is not enough evidence to support or refute that theory. On the one hand, if there was a relationship between the two, one might suspect that the Corona Pen Company would source rebadged pencils from Parker rather than from other companies. Rex would seem to be the unlikeliest supplier, given that Parker sued Rex for patent infringement in 1929 over the washer clip, and after that litigation many of Rex’s customers wound up with Parker-supplied rebadges . . . except . . . 

In the case of the Century Pen Company, another pen company that our collectors’ lore indicated was somehow related with Parker, internal corporate records proved that Century was clearly controlled by Parker (see “The Second Century,” June 10, 2020: Volume 6, page 166). Notwithstanding Parker’s documented control, Century also procured pencils from Rex and National Pen Products.

More documentation must be out there to answer these questions . . . 

Saturday, January 8, 2022

Parker Liquid Lead Pencils


Presidential (not shown, 14k); Signet (1955) or Insignia (1957) in gold fill, Flighter in stainless

51 Custom (gold filled cap), 51 Deluxe (lustraloy cap)

51 Special (black jewel)

21 (convex clip) and 21 Special (concave clip)

41 (top) and 45 (bottom)


61

61 (side view, showing "rainbow" caps)

According to the 1957 catalog, the shorter pencil is the LL-275 and the longer is LL-295.
The LL-275 was paired with Jotters for the "Pardners" sets.  The LL-295 was called the Liquid Lead Special in 1955.

LL-275 "Pardners" pencils

LL-295 Liquid Lead Special pencils

In 1955, these were referred to as the Liquid Lead DeLuxe

Interesting variants on the DeLuxe:  Top marked "I've got Liquid Lead in my Pencil"; center marked "Demonstrator"; bottom marked "Parker" only on both sides of barrel.

English prototype and American oddball with exposed eraser



Most refills are brass; these two have Parker company imprints.


Sunday, July 18, 2021

Definitely a Doggie

This article has been included in The Leadhead's Pencil Blog Volume 7, now available here.


If you don't want the book but you enjoy the article, please consider supporting the Blog project here.

Years ago while I was editing The Pennant, I used a connect-the-dots metaphor to address how theories become proven history.  Let’s say you have two dots on a sheet of paper and say “I see a doggie,” sure – you can draw any kind of dog you want around it, hitting both dots, but no matter how fervently you argue the point, two dots doth not a doggie make.

Random bits of evidence are like dots on a page, and when enough of them are assembled, the statement “that’s a doggie” morphs from unsubstantiated canine obsession to the obvious.  However, that never means a researcher should abandon a close examination of where new dots land on the page - an errant dot too far from a quadruped’s face might make the difference between a dog and an elephant.

I employed this analogy in response to harsh initial criticism of “Wahl, Sheaffer and the Race for Boston,” a series of articles from 2016 (starting in Volume 4, page 300) which presented the case for Sheaffer actually interfering with Wahl’s purchase of the Boston Fountain Pen Company, and Sheaffer’s surreptitious acquisition of Boston’s fledgling pencil development by Boston’s Superintendent at the time, David J. LaFrance (of Dewitt-LaFrance fame).  The story seemed fantastic when I first introduced it – “You can write it, but it didn’t happen,” one person commented.

Five years later, a few other dots have landed on the page, but none have fallen outside the distinct outline of man’s best friend.   Eventually, unless something new comes up, the consensus will be yes . . . it happened.

My recent article on Parker’s entry into the pencil business is similar (see https://leadheadpencils.blogspot.com/2021/04/checking-off-all-boxes.html).  All the dots line up with the story that the American Metals Company was making Perfect Point and Acme pencils until Parker came along and became – to continue the analogy – the tail that wagged the dog.  I’ve theorized that American Metals had already developed a new pencil and that Parker, which suddenly realized it had to start offering pencils and it needed to do so fast, couldn’t afford to wait the two years Parker claimed it spent developing what would become the “Non-Clog” or “Lucky Lock” pencil. 

That meant, drawing a straight line between two distant dots, that American Metals was already making something that Parker took over.  On that straight line, however, was a crucial missing dot: something that looks exactly like a Parker, but isn’t marked as a Parker.  Something like this:


I bought it in an online auction half expecting that there was an oversight and it might be marked Parker, but other than the nice machine-engraved pattern on the barrel, this one is completely unmarked.   There are differences from most Parkers.  It is smaller and thinner than usual:


Also, this doesn’t have Parker’s Lucky Lock cap - in fact, it doesn’t budge at all, just like those later Acme pencils I had theorized were made by American Metals:


Oh, but that’s a longshot . . . if this pencil just looks like a Parker, but lacks a Lucky Lock cap, how can we be sure this pencil isn’t unrelated to the story?  Because of this:


These two pencils are identical, except my other example has no engraving.  Neither one has a Lucky Lock cap, the size is identical, and there’s one other difference: the other example is clearly marked with a Parker imprint.


Does this prove it?  No, but this dot fits squarely on the lines between the other dots.  If one like this surfaces, marked “Acme,” that would be the clincher wrapping up the entire story neatly with a bow on top.  For now, I’m content to see this particular doggie advancing one step closer to saying “woof.”


Monday, July 12, 2021

The Long Road Home

This article has been included in The Leadhead's Pencil Blog Volume 7, now available here.


If you don't want the book but you enjoy the article, please consider supporting the Blog project here.

The Parker Pen Company made fountain pens and pencils for the Zaner-Bloser Company of Columbus, Ohio.  They are exceedingly rare, but I have managed to find a few examples:


These are easy to spot with their coke-bottle shaped, ergonomic form, which was protected by design patents.  The earliest patent was for a dip pen holder only, and was issued to J.F. Barnhart on September 10, 1891 (design patent 35,059, pictured in Volume 1, page 380).  

Parker Z. Bloser secured design patents for other variations on the Zaner-Bloser shape.  On April 17, 1928 he applied for one for a double-ended pen holder, which was granted July 17, 1928 as Design Patent 75,772:


On August 5, 1930, he applied for a fountain pen version, issued October 21, 1930 as Design Patent 82,309:


And on May 13, 1936, he applied for a patent for the shape applied to a mechanical pencil, issued August 18, 1936 as Design Patent 100,845


Even if I weren’t writing this blog and documenting finds as they arrive, I’d remember where all but one of these originated.  It started with the Modernistic (“True Blue”) set at the bottom, which came, complete with a bit of smoke damage, from Ginger Welch – she was liquidating Stan Pfeiffer’s collection after the house fire that took Stan’s life (see Volume 2, page 2).  

The green one in the middle came from Dan Zazove (see Volume 4, page 135), and the pen just above it was sold to me by George Rimakis.  The only one of these for which I don’t recall the source is the black ringtop at the top.

That leaves that greyish green example, in a plastic that resembles Parker’s “Zephyr” plastic, but the color is just a shade more green.  I wrote about it in Volume 3, page 83 – it was a long wait for that pencil, with a couple of years intervening between when its owner first posted it online and when he took me up on my offer to take it off his hands.

I couldn’t remember his name at the time I wrote the article, but in the last year he has resurfaced: Gabriel Galicia Goldsmith is now a prolific collector, and he’s been sharing many of his new and interesting finds on Facebook over the last few months.  He reached out to me to ask about the Parker Zaner-Bloser pencil he had sold me . . . he wanted it back.

We’ve all been there - selling something, regretting it, then buying it back again.  He explained that the pencil had belonged to his grandfather, which added an extra helping of pain to the story.

I wanted to help him, but there were a couple problems.  First, things don’t usually leave the museum after they arrive . . . I really wanted to keep it. Second  is that prices on these have gone up significantly, and I figured it was probably worth twice the hefty price I’d paid Gabriel for it a few years ago.  Third was my quandry about the price – I subscribe to the Rob Bader philosophy regarding pricing: my price is the amount it will take me to find something I like just as much.  But selling grandpa’s pencil back to its prior owner?   Geez, I really didn’t want to sell it for less than it is worth now, but I didn’t feel good about charging that amount given the circumstance. 

I knew where another example was and that would solve both of our problems: Larry Liebman had one, and a little birdie (should we call him Larry bird?) told me Larry might part with it.  I contacted Larry, and the deal was struck: Gabriel would pay Larry whatever Larry wanted for his example, Larry would ship it to me, and when I received Larry’s replacement, I’d ship Gabriel’s pencil back.  Everybody wins: I don’t set the price, I get something I like exactly as much as what I have, and I even would have the chance to photograph the two together and see if there are any differences between them.


There were: the clip on Gabriel’s pencil has a plain, Depression-style Parker clip with sans-serif lettering, while Larry’s example has Parker spelled out in serifed letters, like an earlier Duofold . . . but without Parker’s 1916 patent date.  Also, note that Gabriel’s pencil has a domed top, while the cap on Larry’s is flat:


There’s one other little difference on the side.  It has the same imprint – but running the other direction. 


After these shots were taken, Gabriel’s grandfather’s pencil was back in his hands – seven years later!