I normally get pencils online, but the other day I went out with a friend to sleuth for them in person. I’ve never posted here before, but I hoped someone would appreciate them.
I’m curious for any information regarding the gold one, inscribed L.W.F & Co. The mechanism is quite stiff—it’s hard to extend—so much so that the shop thought it broken and sold it to me at a discount. I was wondering if WD40 would help to ease it up. As for the other ones, I haven’t done any research yet. At a glance, they seem to consist a Koh-I-Noor lead-holder, a Scripto, and a Lindy “Stik” pat. I would love any information on these pencils.
The yellow one is a KIN 5616 “for all degrees” clutch pencil, a variation on the theme of the famous KIN 5611; made in Italy by Koh-I-Noor (I think since the 50’s, possibly earlier); the denomination “for all degrees” meant that the internal barrel and clutch system was designed to accept lead cores from the slimmest/hardest — say, 8H or 10H — to the fatty/softest ones (typically, 3B or 4B, possibly even 5B and 6B, but those lead cores were significantly larger, and usually had their own dedicated pencils). In this sense, it was a “universal” leadholder, compared to others more focussed say on HB lead and so on.
The pocket clip might not be original: some of this clutch pencils did not sport one, others had a pocket clip with a window acting as sliding lead hardness indicators; it all depends on whether there is a sequence of lead hardness degrees on one of the facets along the barrel.
As for the gold one, it seems a telescopic/propelling pencil from the early 1900: the design is quite common for those models, but the mechanism is very cool. The maker might be a Leroy W. Fairchild (see here for a decidedly more elaborate model), but there were plenty of artisans producing these objects back in the day (based in France, Germany, the UK, possibly America, etc.).
Woah! Thanks for the information. The KIN is definitely satisfying to use. What would I do about the stiffness of the telescoping mechanism? I wouldn’t want to damage it.
Also, the lead sizing is quite confusing, I’m assuming the Scripto and Lindy use 1.3 mm (I don’t own any yet), but the LWF has a lead size I would place between 1.3mm and 2mm. I might have to borrow some calipers from a friend.
Thanks again for your expertise
Regarding the lead diameters: if it feels slimmer than a 2.00 mm, but quite larger than a 0.9, it is most likely a 1.18mm (or “Imperial” denomination); there should be an analogous size in the world of inches, but I don’t know the conversion tables. Still, you can relatively easily find lead cores online for those pencils, even on Ebay.
There used to be a very rare 1.5mm lead diameter around, but I think it is almost impossible to get now; I found one tube of such lead by chance, coming together with a Faber-Castell pencil working specifically with that size — the F-C TK 9450 — but I have never seen anything else after (yet, I’ve not actively looked for).
If you find with your callipers that the size is even different, please tell us more here: strange lead diameters are always fascinating, and before the age of standardisation, even the same numbers and labels could mean very different things on the market.
and that’s before we get to proprietary lead formats and manufacturer variations. The size code (M, VS, W, etc) can sometimes be found inscribed on or near the lead sleeve.
The Scripto and Lindy are the same size, larger than 0.9mm. You might be correct about the 1.18mm sizing. The LWF is significantly larger, but not quite 2mm; I whittled down a 2mm lead from a 2B pencil to stick it in there. I’ll try to pick up some 1.18mm lead online. Thanks!
Now as for the stiffness…
Try to avoid WD-40. It’s a penetrating oil, and it’s difficult to clean up. A light synthetic oil like Moebius 9010, used sparingly, is easier to remove with lighter fluid, and will also loosen up any loose rust if that’s what’s making it difficult to extend.
While I had my micrometer out, I decided to measure the metal rods of the Wolff’s lead gauge, pictured above. As there is light surface corrosion to some of the rods, I took several readings from each and aimed for an accuracy no greater than ±0.0005 inch. The millimetre readings are conversions.
H: 0.0300" / 0.762 mm
2: 0.0355" / 0.902 mm
M: 0.0410" / 1.041 mm
4: 0.0420" / 1.067 mm
5: 0.0455" / 1.156 mm
6: 0.0490" / 1.245 mm
7: 0.0570" / 1.448 mm
VS: 0.0580" / 1.473 mm
P: 0.0610" / 1.549 mm
W: 0.0790" / 2.007 mm
A couple of observations:
W appears to be equivalent to Faber’s 2 mm leads, the main difference being that refills for 19th century British pencils tended to be much shorter. I measured some modern Staedtler 2 mm refills and these came out in the range 1.985 mm to 2.005 mm (average 1.995 mm).
There is no obvious 1.18 mm lead (3/64") - it would lie almost halfway between 5 and 6 - which supports the idea that this size was a later introduction, possibly by Yard-o-led and based on the standard American wire gauge.
H and 2 size leads were essentially the Victorian equivalents of 0.7 mm and 0.9 mm, which seems remarkable in the days before polymer leads. Obviously the leads were much shorter, and sometimes even came packaged in individual glass tubes, but in the 1820s Mordan sold an even smaller VH lead, apparently little used (even Mordan’s advertisements described it as “very small in size, seldom required”!)
