27 replies to this topic

[david i]

I offer for consideration a Parker Duofold Transparent Demonstrator.

The Best Duofold Imaginable?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Cachet is a nuanced thing in the upper strata of Duofolds.

But... this helps catch your eye, I hope.

While I don't collect Demonstrators in a completist fashion-- I've sold my only examples of at least a Conklin Nozac, Parker 61 and Parker 45 Demo-- I do have a growing number of them, usually pens representing series I already actively collect.

While terms can get a bit fuzzy at the edges --particularly by the late 1940s-- Demos generally reference pens provided to dealers, pens that allow examination of internal features. The two most common approaches to making Demonstrators include cutting viewing ports into cap and barrel and manufacturing the pen from a transparent material. Modern so-called Demonstrators do demonstrate, but really are not Demonstrators. They have the "show the guts" thing going for them, but they lack the minuscule production numbers and restricted distribution seen with the real deal from the old days.

I collect Parker's 1921-1935 original Duofold, both flat-top and later streamlined forms. But, again, I don't collect in completist fashion. Have probably a dozen or two pens in my collection and many more than that in the sales pipeline. I grab examples that appeal at the moment, and I've accumulated some with great color, some in pristine condition, and some with significant model/variant cachet.


I've photographed more than 7000 old pens for my photo archive, have browsed ebay daily and have attended 100 pen shows or so. No doubt I miss things, but... I have handled and have seen many Duofolds.

So, I did have quite a bit of interest-- in my role of collector-- when a friend found a transparent streamlined Duofold Demonstrator. I've never handled another. Demos starting in the mid 1930's are far more common.

This one has a sharp Duofold imprint, has transparent cap, barrel, end pieces, gripping section and feed. The original sac, adherent to barrel wall, has Parker markings. Just stunning. The closest I've seen is a similar color Parker Lucky Curve (without "Duofold" imprint), belonging to Tom Zoss iirc.

Always it is fun to find pen on ebay, buried in collections/hoards purchased in one fell swoop. That didn't happen with this one

I paid the asking price for this gem. I've tracked reports of one selling a few years ago, a weaker condition Canadian specimen residing in an English collection, and possibly one sold at auction in 1992.

This one will stay with me at length.

Curious if anyone else has handled any?

regards

David

[FarmBoy]

I paid the asking price for this gem.

I glad to know you also contributed to his tuition.

You know he will now buying at the next show now as you competition.

Todd

[PatM]

David -

Wow!! I don't collect Parkers but this sure gets my attention - way cool. I've seen and handled lots of other demonstrators, primarily Sheaffer, and this is the first transparent feed I recall seeing. There are lots of cool aspects to this pen. Thanks for sharing.

Best,
Pat

[david i]

I glad to know you also contributed to his tuition.

You know he will now buying at the next show now as you competition.

Todd

Hi Todd,

What better than to buy a special pen (hey, that's why I sell oodles of pens; doing so provides justification/rationalization for all the purhcases) from a motivated collector younger than the median age of 112 found in our hobby, one who has levels of knowledge and of clinical judgement dwarfing many "20 year veterens"????

Seriously!

And, there always are enough pens to go around. We need motivated "competition" in the game, especially (or did I mention that already) competition younger than the median age of 112 found in pendom.

Besides, the second pen purchased as part of the pair should subsidize the deal at least a bit

regarrds

David

[Jos]

This is a stunning pen, I have never seen such a demonstrator Duofold before.
But can I ask a nasty question? We recently saw very well made forgeries on "vintage" Parker pens, including demonstrators in rare orange plastic.

So my question is: which features on this pen make you feel confident that this is a genuine vintage specimen? For instance, is it normal to see a Xmas tree feed on a streamline Duofold ?

Edited by Jos, 04 January 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[david i]

This is a stunning pen, I have never seen such a demonstrator Duofold before.
But can I ask a nasty question? We recently saw very well made forgeries on "vintage" Parker pens, including demonstrators in rare orange plastic.

So my question is: which features on this pen make you feel confident that this is a genuine vintage specimen? For instance, is it normal to see a Xmas tree feed on a streamline Duofold ?

Good questions that lend themselves to reasoned, though perhaps not absolute, answers.

First, I've seen at least one similar Parker Lucky Curve (non-"Duofold") Demo found twenty years ago in Janesville, one that has crazing and powdering of the plastic at the top going along with its age, lending context and connection for the look of this pen.

Second, the imprint on this pen appears to be heat stamped, with raised edges, as per the days of yore, rather than the engraved imprints i've seen in modern repro pens, such as Chris Thompson's and with some of the "bandless Duofolds" that have turned up on ebay.

Third, the gooped ancient sac adherent to the clear wall of the barrel has Parker markings on it.

Fourth, ambering of the material is not 100% homogeneous, a bit lighter where further from sac, consistent with age.

Fifth, comb feeds and arrow nibs turn up in early Duofolds, and I find my fair share of spear feeds in streamlined pens. If the Demo were made in the earliest days of the streamlined era, or even ahead of release, I can imagine a spear feed showing up, though that the feed is transparent shows intent for use with Demo, not an accidental swap. There were Lucky Curve pens Demos done, and a feed such as this would have been used. A slight tangent to this would be the question (i need to review notes) as to whether spear feed disappeared with the start of the streamlined era.

Sixth, I know the source of pen, how it turned up initially on ebay cheaply largely darkened by ink and by bad photography, and... i trust that source. This wasn't initially sold from abroad with glitzy ad and $500-5000 price on ebay. Didn't push on original price, but probably was found for $20.

Seventh, the parts match beautifully with other Duofold Juniors.

So, all that said, some points above are stronger than others, and you will have to make your own choice as to the authenticity of this one.


regards

David

[matt]

Did the seller take a reasonable deduction for what looks like no nib tipping?

[BrianMcQueen]

I just happened to be standing at David's table at the DC show this year when this pen was brought over and flaunted by David's friend. We were both floored by it when it was presented for our inspection. Congratulations, David, on finally acquiring it!

[John Danza]

David, this is a great pen and as you know, extremely rare. However, it's not a Demonstrator. It's a standard Duofold made in clear celluloid. Parker made some of their models in celluloid by special order, IIRC. There's a mention of them in a couple of catalogs, mostly in the Jack Knife Safety series. I've been up-close-and-personal with a few of these before, only one of which was a Duofold. There's a few in the Sachs-Fultz collection, and a few years ago Tsachi bought a celluloid Jack Knife Model 28 at the Chicago Pen Show.

So even though it's not a Demo, it's a high cache pen that you have every right to be proud of. Congratulations!

[John Danza]

One additional point on the celluloids. It's interesting that the Jack Knife Safety pens made from celluloid have hard rubber caps. However, of the two Duofolds I've seen in celluloid (including this one), the caps are celluloid as well. Just thought that was interesting.

[david i]

David, this is a great pen and as you know, extremely rare. However, it's not a Demonstrator. It's a standard Duofold made in clear celluloid. Parker made some of their models in celluloid by special order, IIRC. There's a mention of them in a couple of catalogs, mostly in the Jack Knife Safety series. I've been up-close-and-personal with a few of these before, only one of which was a Duofold. There's a few in the Sachs-Fultz collection, and a few years ago Tsachi bought a celluloid Jack Knife Model 28 at the Chicago Pen Show.

So even though it's not a Demo, it's a high cache pen that you have every right to be proud of. Congratulations!

Hi John,

Some of this is semantics, though I am willing to embrace uncertainty regarding special order item vs a classic Demonstrator, though we are not yet at conclusion, based on what has been offered so far. A special order item in some ways charms me more than does classic Demonstrator.

First. Producing a Duofold in clear celluloid (assuming this pen is celluloid) is how (or is one way) in which Parker would make a Demonstrator. Parker and others made other Demonstrators that way. So the use of clear plastic supports "Demonstrator" and would support your special-order clear pen in theory, too, so does not give us an answer.

Second, This pen might be ten years later than certain Jack-Knife pens, so we must be careful mapping 1920 information to a 1930 pen, though I am amenable to considering parallels. As claimed catalogue information would have great significance in this discussion, I certainly request you dig up any references you might have. Example of the dangers of extrapolation... "Parke's 1948 '51' Demonstrator might not be a Demonstrator, because Parker had history in 1919 of offering a clear Parker 28"

Third, absent any ~1930 data, the intent of the pen remains uncertain, assuming there is actual evidence or fair suspicion (which you do offer).that earlier pens were done in clear plastic specifically with non-Demo intent. We do not have strong evidence at the moment for Parker's intent behind this 1930 streamlined pen. In the context of Demos by Parker and others in the 1930's, Demo is a reasonable hypothesis. So too is your special order notion.

As I am an advocate of not using up-cachet descriptions willy-nilly, and also because even if unproven I find the notion of a special-order pen, the only one of this sort I've seen (and you too? You mention JKS, not streamlined Duofold in the S=F collection), to be in fact better (more up-cachet) than a Demo, I will keep open mind for now.

Do clarify if you have seen literature for 1930-ish pens as special order, if you have seen clear streamlined Duofolds in the Sachs collection, and which literature is the basis for conclusions about Parker's intent behind transparent (besides the Bakelite barrel routine stuff, of course) early JKS pens, whose existence I do not dispute.

I figured this pen would stir some discussion

regards

david

[John Danza]

First. Producing a Duofold in clear celluloid (assuming this pen is celluloid) is how (or is one way) in which Parker would make a Demonstrator. Parker and others made other Demonstrators that way. So the use of clear plastic supports "Demonstrator" and would support your special-order clear pen in theory, too, so does not give us an answer.

Second, This pen might be ten years later than certain Jack-Knife pens, so we must be careful mapping 1920 information to a 1930 pen, though I am amenable to considering parallels. As claimed catalogue information would have great significance in this discussion, I certainly request you dig up any references you might have. Example of the dangers of extrapolation... "Parke's 1948 '51' Demonstrator might not be a Demonstrator, because Parker had history in 1919 of offering a clear Parker 28"

Third, absent any ~1930 data, the intent of the pen remains uncertain, assuming there is actual evidence or fair suspicion (which you do offer).that earlier pens were done in clear plastic specifically with non-Demo intent. We do not have strong evidence at the moment for Parker's intent behind this 1930 streamlined pen. In the context of Demos by Parker and others in the 1930's, Demo is a reasonable hypothesis. So too is your special order notion.

It'll take some time to look for the reference I saw about clear celluloid manufacture, as it was several years ago.

Certainly Parker's intent for your pen could have been for use as a Demonstrator. Since it isn't marked as such, yet the Vacuum Filler of the same era is marked Demonstrator, it would lead one to question if that was the intent for your pen. A demonstrator of the new Vacuum Filler certainly made sense at the time since it was the new filling mechanism Parker was touting. However, button fillers had been around for a long time at this point.

As I am an advocate of not using up-cachet descriptions willy-nilly, and also because even if unproven I find the notion of a special-order pen, the only one of this sort I've seen (and you too? You mention JKS, not streamlined Duofold in the S=F collection), to be in fact better (more up-cachet) than a Demo, I will keep open mind for now.

Do clarify if you have seen literature for 1930-ish pens as special order, if you have seen clear streamlined Duofolds in the Sachs collection, and which literature is the basis for conclusions about Parker's intent behind transparent (besides the Bakelite barrel routine stuff, of course) early JKS pens, whose existence I do not dispute.

As noted above, I'll look for the reference I cited. However, I don't believe it was from the early 1930s, as I don't spend much time in that era.

The pens I saw in the S-F Collection were all flat tops, so none of the streamlined configuration. However, they were all the same color as your pen, or at least were until experiencing varying degrees of discoloration from the sac. I have photos but I made a promise to never use them except for my own reference, so I won't post anything. As I recall, Tsachi's pen was also of the same color.

At the end of the day, the choice is yours on keeping an open mind on what to call it, based on what's offered. My points were made to move the conversation along, and the idea of special order seems a little more "special" than a Demo, but that might just be me. It will be interesting to have Tony weigh in on pens he saw in the Parker achives, to see if there are any similar pens.

There's no doubt that the pen you have is very special and interesting, given that Parker was making nothing but plastic pens at the point this one was made. I'm not aware if it was generally known to the manufacturers at that point that this particular material was pretty unstable compared to the plastics that were being used in standard pens, so I'll leave that to someone else to opine.

[david i]

As noted above, I'll look for the reference I cited. However, I don't believe it was from the early 1930s, as I don't spend much time in that era.

The pens I saw in the S-F Collection were all flat tops, so none of the streamlined configuration. However, they were all the same color as your pen, or at least were until experiencing varying degrees of discoloration from the sac. I have photos but I made a promise to never use them except for my own reference, so I won't post anything. As I recall, Tsachi's pen was also of the same color.

At the end of the day, the choice is yours on keeping an open mind on what to call it, based on what's offered. My points were made to move the conversation along, and the idea of special order seems a little more "special" than a Demo, but that might just be me. It will be interesting to have Tony weigh in on pens he saw in the Parker achives, to see if there are any similar pens.

There's no doubt that the pen you have is very special and interesting, given that Parker was making nothing but plastic pens at the point this one was made. I'm not aware if it was generally known to the manufacturers at that point that this particular material was pretty unstable compared to the plastics that were being used in standard pens, so I'll leave that to someone else to opine.

Hi John, c

At Zoss, Don Lavin mentioned having seen a couple going back to the 1980's. I don't hear of many circulating of late.

Certainly Parker's intent for your pen could have been for use as a Demonstrator. Since it isn't marked as such, yet the Vacuum Filler of the same era is marked Demonstrator, it would lead one to question if that was the intent for your pen. A demonstrator of the new Vacuum Filler certainly made sense at the time since it was the new filling mechanism Parker was touting. However, button fillers had been around for a long time at this point.

Challenges all around. The streamlined pens certainly had an element of "new/different" when they were released. Certainly new enough to justify releasing Demos, though of course Parker did not need justification of a new model to make a Demo. We don't know that some were not made regularly for dealers. The 1946-8 "51" Demo was released years into that series manufacture. And so forth.

Parker's history of making Demonstrators marked "Demonstrator" is... spotty. Vacuum Filler and Vacumatic non-cutaways were so marked, but they were otherwise identical to a retailed model, the Crystal, so differentiation was important. Of course whether the Demo preceded the Crystal... Certainly Parker already was making Crystal when it switched from "Vacuum Filler" to " Vacumatic" imprint, and Demos are found with both imprints.

The only other Demo by Parker to be so marked was the first year "51" Demo. Later 51 Demos were not marked "Demonstrator", and neither were the 1950's-1960's models, though clearly this streamlined Duofold is closer in era to the Vacumatic than to the later pens. Back and forth....

I'm not worried about the "oomph" for this pen. Its scarcity and the cachet of the clear material speak for themselves. I am happy to analyze whether there are reasons to consider it a special-order item rather than a Demonstrator, recognizing that we don't have company literature to back the Demo status of many pens we call Demonstrator (in view of their off catalogue clear plastic). This pen falls into that descriptive category, the final label complicated primarily by your recollection that Parker made special-order pens (albeit documented for earlier models) of this sort, though again, we don't have the documentation on hand, and noting you have mentioned those pens did not have all the usually opaque external parts made transparent. We don't know they were same niche items, though certainly they might have been.

I'm glad some history is being raised, but we would benefit no doubt if we were to see some of the Parker text/images for the earlier pens.


regards

david

[Greg Minuskin]

To my untrained eye I would have thought that somehow some sort of chemical got a hold of this pen, causing the material to be opaque. Yet, with the original (excellent photos by the way!) sac marked Parker inside that sure tells me one thing; they wanted the viewer of the pen to "know" that there was a genuine Parker ink sac inside the pen, sort of like the "Mr. Goodwrench" on a GM car part.

Amazing blog post, and I have to tell you, if I don't check everyday, I am afraid I might miss something. Thank you for such a great site David and others!

Oh, I would do a nice retip on the nib for your David, no charge, just to be nice if you like!

Greg Minuskin
www.gregminuskin.com

Edited by Greg Minuskin, 04 January 2012 - 11:34 PM.

[cjabbott]

I don't have anything important to add to the discussion. I just want to compliment this really, really cool pen! Very cool, David!!

[John Danza]

Yet, with the original (excellent photos by the way!) sac marked Parker inside that sure tells me one thing; they wanted the viewer of the pen to "know" that there was a genuine Parker ink sac inside the pen, sort of like the "Mr. Goodwrench" on a GM car part.

I've seen this before on pens that still had their original Parker sac. It looks like Parker marked their sacs regardless of being able to see through the barrel, perhaps as an advertisement to the first repair person that had to replace the sac. It's one more cool thing about this pen, showing that it didn't get used much.

[David Nishimura]

I would very much like to see any reference to transparent celluloid Parkers in company literature. I am familiar with the references from the 'teens to the transparent Bakelite-barreled pens, which according to Parker literature were originally made as demonstrators but were promoted to regular production items after customers saw and liked them. From the evidence of the pens themselves, transparent celluloid began to be substituted for Bakelite sometime in the '20s -- but always just the barrel, with conventional BHR caps.

I've seen, handled, and owned a number of the transparent celluloid Duofolds over the years. They are rare, and it's usually several years between sightings. The end pieces seem more prone to deterioration, while the sections and feeds are vulnerable to damage, so a number of extant examples have replacement parts in hard rubber. Whether these were made as salesmen's demonstrators is a very good question. They very well may have been, but at the same time, the existence of other Parker products with transparent celluloid components raises the possibility that at least some may have been made for some other purpose -- perhaps just for the sheer novelty, and for proto-collectors within the Parker establishment. How else to explain a Black Giant all in transparent celluloid: cap, barrel, section, and feed? The only one I know of with solid provenance was the personal pen of a major Parker distributor.

[John Danza]

I am familiar with the references from the 'teens to the transparent Bakelite-barreled pens, which according to Parker literature were originally made as demonstrators but were promoted to regular production items after customers saw and liked them.

Which literature notes that the Bakelite barrels were originally intended as demonstrators? I've seen text in the catalogs that tell the dealers that these barrels would be good for use as demonstrators, but the barrels were already available as a standard component, so Parker was just making a suggestion to dealers to use an available standard product as a demonstrator.

[David Nishimura]

I believe the passage was in Side Talks -- I don't have an exact reference handy at the moment, I'm afraid.

[Teej47]

Yet, with the original (excellent photos by the way!) sac marked Parker inside...
Greg Minuskin

Start opening up a few Esterbrooks and you'll see plenty of original sacs. My Estie that stays here at work (black J with AAA logo and exquisite 2788 nib) still proudly sports "ESTERBROOK" stenciled in yellow on the still good-as-new sac. Whipped out a few signatures just yesterday with that pen.

I too always get kind of excited when I see an original marked sac (I don't really expect to be able to use it, though I'm far less surprised to find a functional Estie sac than I would be from anybody else... except for Aerometric Parkers, of course). Its a bit like being an archeologist, I think... opening up some ancient box and finding a note with the original owner's name on it.

Tim