Jump to content


Photo

My new bulb filler - a Monitor


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 John Danza

John Danza

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 909 posts

Posted 03 June 2012 - 08:52 AM

I've mentioned in other threads that I've become enchanted by bulb fillers recently, for user pens. I'm not sure how this happened, and I wish it would stop. But while it's happening I've been able to pick up some cool looking pens for not much money. The latest one arrived in the mail today.

Below are photos of a Monitor bulb filler. The clip is stamped "Monitor" and "Made in USA". The steel nib is also marked "Monitor" and "Made in USA" and also has a "4" on it. There are no barrel markings at all. As you can see, the cap and blind cap are this cool reddish-brown swirl pattern, while the barrel is a barber pole stripped plastic of the same color. The transparency of the barrel is phenomenal, almost leading one to think that the barrel had never been filled. But that's not the case because all the gold plating is worn off of the front of the clip from top to bottom, but remains on the underside of the ball. The cap band is also unbrassed gold plating of filled. It was previously restored with a bulb that looks too small for the pen, and it takes a lot of pumps to get the thing filled because of it. But the ink flows well and it writes fairly smoothly, so it's all good.

Anyone know anything about the Monitor brand? Thanks!

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

John Danza


"Positive attitude makes for good decisions, but bad decisions make for great stories."

 

 

6080b6b0-840c-4c9c-aea6-5fb1f5d30e96_zps

 


#2 Hugh

Hugh

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 1,878 posts
  • LocationNorthern NSW, Australia

Posted 03 June 2012 - 10:57 AM

Hi John,

While I can't share any light on Monitor, I 'm pretty impressed with the plastic!! Of late I've been seeing a fair number of third tier ( maybe a few better than that) that have some remarkable plastics to the point where i've been starting to think ...Heck, a tray of those would be be rather grand !! Neat.

Regards
Hugh
Hugh Cordingley

#3 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 03 June 2012 - 01:12 PM

Hi John,

Allow me to shed a bit of light. Indeed, I believe I have a Monitor of this sort buried at home, but, perhaps better still, I have sold a few of its better known un-re-badged (or is that un sub-branded) cousins ;)

This might be the world's first presentation of all three colors, noting too the pens can be found (less commonly) as lever fillers, in which case there is no spiral plastic, just the swirl. As non-Monitors, they do have gold nibs (best I can tell).


Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image



regards

david
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#4 David Nishimura

David Nishimura

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 701 posts

Posted 03 June 2012 - 03:43 PM

To make it explicit, "Monitor" was a Wahl-Eversharp sub-brand. In addition to the lever-fillers and bulb-fillers, which are found with both Monitor and Wahl-Oxford markings, there were also syringe-fillers, which to date have only been found as Monitors.

The plating on the Monitor nibs and clips was very, very thin -- really just a wash -- so even on pens that have seen little or no actual use, the plating is usually mostly missing. The cap bands, however, appear to have been made of gold filled metal, and their plating is normally intact.






#5 John Danza

John Danza

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 909 posts

Posted 03 June 2012 - 04:07 PM

Thanks for the great info guys. It's interesting that this is a sub-brand of Wahl-Eversharp, but made to look exactly like their primary brand (plastics, design, etc.). From a marketing and brand protection prospective, this doesn't sound very smart as you wouldn't want them both in a dealer's display with different prices and such similar looks.

Are these 1930s-1940s manufacture? I wouldn't think they went beyond the war years, but I don't know anything about Wahl. Thanks again.

John Danza


"Positive attitude makes for good decisions, but bad decisions make for great stories."

 

 

6080b6b0-840c-4c9c-aea6-5fb1f5d30e96_zps

 


#6 John Danza

John Danza

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 909 posts

Posted 03 June 2012 - 04:18 PM

Hey guys, one more question. I noticed that the clips on David I's pens say Wahl Oxford. I understand that Oxford was a lower cost brand than the standard Wahl Eversharp models, although I see on one of the pens that there's a barrel imprint that it's made by Eversharp. It sounds like Monitor was a sub-brand of a sub-brand, as couldn't you categorize Wahl Oxford as a sub-brand (as opposed to a model) of Wahl-Eversharp? Gets kinda tricky!

John Danza


"Positive attitude makes for good decisions, but bad decisions make for great stories."

 

 

6080b6b0-840c-4c9c-aea6-5fb1f5d30e96_zps

 


#7 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 03 June 2012 - 07:26 PM

Hi John,

Couple general davey-views on this scenario.

While "sub brand" and "re badge" are useful notions, I know of multiple pens which from my perspective get a bit fuzzy at the edges of such pen jargon. Sometimes viewing the reasons for said fuzziness can lead to better clarity. Sometimes... not ;)

Too, I assert that so far Oxford has been poorly examined in survey or in comprehensive review than have been low line period Parkers (Parker Challenger, Parkette, etc) and have been low line period Sheaffers (eg. WASP, Vacuum Fil Sub brands) and have been Parker re-badges (Diamo nd Medal Vac-Fil, etc), though I am a bit charmed that at this point in the hobby we can consider Parker re-badges to be reasonably well examined. Ah, how times change. I do have some trade catalogues showing low line Wahls including Oxfords. Might be time to explore a bit.

More below the quote.

Hey guys, one more question. I noticed that the clips on David I's pens say Wahl Oxford. I understand that Oxford was a lower cost brand than the standard Wahl Eversharp models, although I see on one of the pens that there's a barrel imprint that it's made by Eversharp. It sounds like Monitor was a sub-brand of a sub-brand, as couldn't you categorize Wahl Oxford as a sub-brand (as opposed to a model) of Wahl-Eversharp? Gets kinda tricky!


The pens in my photo are marked Wahl Oxford, tying them overtly to Wahl and seemingly putting them beyond the pale of sub-brand or re-badge, at least to degree the best categorized examples of that which we call sub-brand (1930's Sheaffer WASP and such) do not directly cite the company brand in full words.

Off hand (I'm on bus back to Manhattan, away from my pens), I don't insist that all Oxfords have Wahl markings. If some (and they might be) are marked just Oxford, even if marked "by the makers of Eversharp", we at least get into terrain in which "sub-brand" can be contemplated, much as we do consider Canadian Prosperity (marked "made by Sheaffer" still is considered by most to be a sub-brand pen, which i suppose it would not be if it were marked "Sheaffer Prosperity". They fuzzy line. Still, that some Oxford's are Wahl Oxfords and (presumably... eep!) are related pens, I tend not to consider Oxford a sub-brand of Wahl, but rather a model range within within Wahl. . I am amenable to reconsidering my stance.

Monitor on other hand, I do not view as a Wahl, per se, but indeed a either sub-brand or re-badged product.

As to sub-brand vs re- badge (you know this, but others might not)

Again, in general view, I see re-branded pens as items either identical to regular model... or not... but made by a major maker for a specific market, one not advertised for general distribution, usually a specific store chain (eg. Parker-made Websters for Sears), indeed stores for which same-label pens at other times might have been made by other major manufacturers.

A sub-brand was a label used on ones that were aimed at general market, usually not revealing explicit connection to the primary manufacturer, probably as the items were low line, not limited to a specific store. Sheaffer's WASP Clipper exemplifies this.

David Nishimura described Monitor as a sub-brand. I don't dispute this, but largely because I have no information regarding general distribution of Monitor, vs its use for niche market such as store chain. So, for me the question is open as to which sort of pen is Monitor. Possibly the other David has some hard info I lack. That happens ;)

So, for me, Monitor is either a sub-brand or a re-badged pen. In time I hope to clarify which.

Even if Monitor is a sub-brand of Wahl and even if we really want to push to envelope and call Wahl Oxford (or at least Oxfords not marked Wahl, if such exist) as sub-brand of Wahl (I don't want to do this), I would consider them independent sub-brands, not sub-sub brand.

Or... something... ;)

d
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#8 Hugh

Hugh

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 1,878 posts
  • LocationNorthern NSW, Australia

Posted 03 June 2012 - 09:38 PM

From what I've seen I'd call it both a re-badged and a sub-brand pen .

Regards
Hugh
Hugh Cordingley

#9 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 03 June 2012 - 09:44 PM

From what I've seen I'd call it both a re-badged and a sub-brand pen .

Regards
Hugh


Hi Hugh,

I view the two terms as mutually exclusive, as once a pen is one, it cannot be the other. I'd be curious to hear how a pen can be both ;) That of course is different from our simply not being sure which of the two roles a given pen played.

Of course that gets into "who defines terms" as per Garth's recent thread on labeling pen and manufacturer tiers.

http://fountainpenbo...-manufacturers/
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#10 Hugh

Hugh

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 1,878 posts
  • LocationNorthern NSW, Australia

Posted 04 June 2012 - 12:19 AM

Hi David,

Clearly the pen is re-badged , basically the same as a standard Wahl pen. If the pen is then marketed under a different name as a stand alone "brand" then I see no issue in calling it a sub-brand as well, of course we know it's origins but a buyer may not and sees it as it's own "identity" which is what the maker wanted it to appear, a stand alone brand. It's more a matter from which angle you view it, I'd view the re- badged Parkers for Sears as both as well but I see Pencopen as a straight sub brand because I can't see the connection with standard Parker models. Viewing from different perspectives can give different impressions, which is "right"? I suggest both need to be considered.

Regards
Hugh
Hugh Cordingley

#11 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 01:50 AM

Hi David,

Clearly the pen is re-badged , basically the same as a standard Wahl pen. If the pen is then marketed under a different name as a stand alone "brand" then I see no issue in calling it a sub-brand as well... SNIP

Regards
Hugh


Hi Hugh,

Couple key challenges to the above:

1. Being basically the same as a standard (expected, big name, etc) pen doesn't pertain to differentiating "re-badged" from "sub-brand". EIther one can be basically the same as the standard big name version and either one can deviate heavily from the standard big name pen. It's about target markets.

2. Just to be clear, I'm not calling the Monitor a sub-brand as well as a re-badged pen. I'm pointing out that in and of itself, it can be either, and that I lack info to pin it down. David NIshimura referred to it as a sub-brand, though I don't know if he uses the term casually or if he has information it saw wide/general marketing vs seeing service as a store brand. Too, he might not be using the terms as I do (see link in early post regarding "who coins the terms") ;)

, of course we know it's origins but a buyer may not and sees it as it's own "identity" which is what the maker wanted it to appear, a stand alone brand.


Note that your description is sufficient to suggest the pen either is a sub-brand, or perhaps a re-badged pen.

It's more a matter from which angle you view it, I'd view the re- badged Parkers for Sears as both as well but I see Pencopen as a straight sub brand because I can't see the connection with standard Parker models. Viewing from different perspectives can give different impressions, which is "right"? I suggest both need to be considered.


Nah it's a matter of applying definitions and of clarifying definitions.

A pen that was relabeled with a store brand (in fact that that label at other times perhaps having been made by other pen companies) is a re-badged pen. One can submit that a re-badged pen is a sub-set of sub-brand pens, but being sub-brand is not sufficient to make something re-badged

A pen that was made for wide distribution, not limited to a store brand, but which had its major-maker origins... obscured... is a sub-brand.

These terms have seen widespread usage the last few years including academic articles in print.

We don't know (or I don't know) if Monitor was widely sold or represents product made for a store. I can thus, perhaps, say it perhaps (or more likely) was a sub-brand, but I cannot exclude store-brand (re-badged) purpose. Finding it was for sale in a couple un-related stores would be enough to exclude re-badge. Finding clearly non-Wahl Monitors (suggesting other companies made Monitor label too, as for a store chain) would support the re-badge label.

As with Monitor, Pencopen by Parker remains gray zone. We can guess as to whether we believe it maybe was made for wide based sale (sub-brand) or for a single store chain (re-badge), but we don't... know.

Different perspectives are fine, to a point. But unless one wishes to re-define terms, the mapping of the terms we have to pens in play seems to be less a case of perspective than of case exploring how well pens fit the definitions.

regards

d
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#12 Hugh

Hugh

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 1,878 posts
  • LocationNorthern NSW, Australia

Posted 04 June 2012 - 03:30 AM

Hi David,

The standard definition for a sub brand is : A subsidiary brand ( I would assume in the pen industry a subsidiary would be defined as (i) serving to assist/supplement in terms of marketing (ii) a secondary line). By definition a re-badged product is :

to relaunch (a product) under a new name, brand, or logo. The pen in the OP clearly meets the definition of a re-badged product, does it also fall under the definition of sub brand? I tend to think it may well do so. I did err in judgement on Parker/Sears being a sub brand for the reason both where independent companies, clearly rebadged product made to order ( and/or requirements) for Sears.

To your key challenges. To be a rebadged product it has to be rebadged from an existing product, of course can have different trim, colours , clips and so on but the basic "chassis" has to come from a product already in existence (by definition). A sub brand need not have that connection but be a different product, although a sub brand can contain re badged products (again as by definition). A re badged product does not have to be a sub brand but may be marketed under a different brand name by another company.

A store brand is a stand alone brand , in the case of Sears simply using rebadged pens. The pens marketed by Sears where sold as stand alone brand under names owned by Sears regardless of who made the pen, by defininition can't be sub brands.


"A pen that was made for wide distribution, not limited to a store brand, but which had its major-maker origins... obscured... is a sub-brand."


Yes, noting a sub brand can contain rebadged products. I'm quiet comfortable with a pen, at times, being both rebadged and a sub brand depending on the circumstances, the two terms aren't mutually exclusive but neither are they mutually inclusive.
RegardsHugh


Edited by Hugh, 04 June 2012 - 03:33 AM.

Hugh Cordingley

#13 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 03:41 AM

Hi David,

The standard definition for a sub brand is :


Standard definition for "good" is... good. In pendom good means bad. Buy a good pen at price for a pen not in bad shape and one will have overpaid severely. Knowing hobby jargon is at least as important as knowing dictionary terms. ;)

Pull up any printed/published article or webicle on sub-brand pens and you will find the pendom term is as described above in my note.

The pen above does not meet the pendom definition of a re-badged pen (not yet anyway), as the store for which it was rebadged is unknown and as we lack any Wahl information that the pen was produced for a specific store rather than for general sale.

We can speculate the pen might have been a re-badge, but we don't have information to conclude it.

regards

d
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#14 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 03:47 AM

To your key challenges. To be a rebadged product it has to be rebadged from an existing product, of course can have different trim, colours , clips and so on but the basic "chassis" has to come from a product already in existence (by definition).




I agree that to be a rebadged product, the item must be rebadged. How could it not have been?


The rebadging though has to do with application of a different brand name for item to be sold by a specific store as a store brand. The existing product is the concept of the main company pen, a "parker pen" or similar. The Diamond Medal, Pencopen, Webster and Good Service are rebadging the Parkerness of the Parker. Physical chassis appears irrelevant save that most pen companies will have some common bones to nearly anything produced, given that re-tooling from ground up for a niche item sold by specific store brand would seem inefficient. If the metal for the nib and the plastic for the barrel is played with at the main factory, there is your "shared company chassis", I suppose ;)


d
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#15 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 03:50 AM

A sub brand need not have that connection but be a different product,




Not so. The pendom definitions revolve around target markets. How much of the physical bones amongst pens are shared has nothing to do with the label applied. Indeed the sub-brand WASP Clipper OS in Ebonized Pearl can be well imagined to share more in common with Sheaffer, proper, than the Good Service bulb-fill helical-web green pen for Sears has in common with any Parker sold as Parker. Yet, the WASP is a sub-brand and the Good Service is a rebadged pen.

regards

david
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#16 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 03:54 AM


A re badged product does not have to be a sub brand but may be marketed under a different brand name by another company.


A rebadged pen ( I will leave "product" to the product collectors) has to be marked as a different brand name for sale by a specific company (store).) otherwise it is not a rebadged pen.

A sub-brand pen is for general sale.


David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#17 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 03:55 AM

I'm quiet comfortable with a pen, at times, being both rebadged and a sub brand depending on the circumstances, the two terms aren't mutually exclusive


Yes, but you use "standard" definitions, which could mislead one into thinking good pens aren't bad, so we still need to deal with the pendom element of these terms that do leave them exclusive. ;)
David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image

#18 John Danza

John Danza

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 909 posts

Posted 04 June 2012 - 06:05 AM

I'm the first to admit that I incorrectly use sub-brand and rebadged interchangeably sometimes. But in my mind, a sub-brand is a brand made and sold by a company side-by-side with their main brand, while a re-badged brand is one that is made by a company for sale by others using their branding but with features that are identical to their main brand. Here's my examples using Parker, my main knowledge base:

1. Sub-Brand: Silver Dollar and New Special are Parker Sub-Brands. They were made by Parker and featured in Parker's catalogs as inexpensive alternatives to the models that were imprinted Parker. In the context of this thread, the Wahl Oxford would be a sub-brand of Wahl Eversharp because of the reliance on the Wahl name.

2. Re-Badged: Vac Fill Diamond Medals are re-badged because they are made by Parker using the distinctive Parker feature of the vacuum filler mechanism, the same as the Parker-imprinted Vacumatic. In this category would also be the faceted lever fill Websters and Good Service, because they were made by Parker using the same model structure as the Parker-imprinted Parkette.

I would not include the bulb-filler Pencopen as a re-badge, because Parker never made a Parker-imprinted bulb filler. So it sounds like we need another category. For want of a better term, I would call this a "contract manufactured" Parker model, since Parker was hired by another party to create a non-Parker pen model for independent sale.

David, perhaps these last posts would be better split out into their own thread in the "Elements of Collecting" area. Just a thought.




John Danza


"Positive attitude makes for good decisions, but bad decisions make for great stories."

 

 

6080b6b0-840c-4c9c-aea6-5fb1f5d30e96_zps

 


#19 Hugh

Hugh

    journeyman

  • Members
  • 1,878 posts
  • LocationNorthern NSW, Australia

Posted 04 June 2012 - 11:07 AM

Well, where to start!!

Firstly, the manufacture, distribution and sale of pens is a business and as such standard definitions do apply. That those unconnected with the business wish to define terms differently ( such as pen collectors) they can do so, it just doesn't overshadow the standard definitions that apply in business. The standard definitions apply to the business and therefore their product, noting many "pen" manufacturers also produced other products such as ink. The good=bad is an example of pen terminology with little meaning outside the hobby , and at that in the fringe of the hobby as well.

A sub brand can only apply to a pen made and marketed by the parent company, as per Johns' examples.

While David defines ( or seems to) a rebadged pen as one made for another party ( and it can't be a sub brand in Sears case anyway as they owned the name themselves) that only applies if based on an existing model.

A sub brand is crated by the manufacturer for whatever reason ( ie. to increase sales, a prestige line, a budget line etc.) , the pen sold under that sub brand name is determined by the manufacturer and if he chooses to base pens on existing models(rebadge) or unrelated models that's his choice not some one outside the business.

Of course as John points out some examples fit neither sub brand or rebadged hence "contrast" or "special order" etc could well apply.

As I mentioned before I'm quiet happy with my position.
Hugh Cordingley

#20 david i

david i

    ADVISOR

  • ADVISORS
  • 7,515 posts
  • LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 04 June 2012 - 04:04 PM

Well, where to start!!

Firstly, the manufacture, distribution and sale of pens is a business and as such standard definitions do apply.


Nope. We don't play with the pens in context of business, but in context of collectables. Just as good means bad in collecting while good means good in standard definitions and business, I also note that we use concepts such as "tier", while such words essentially never appear in original period pendom business paper. Our process of categorization recognizes history, but is far from synonymous with "standard" lexicon.

One no doubt can go about being quite comfortable that "a good condition pen should be good, as is standard", but that is recipe for disaster in the collecting milieu.

"Sub Brand" has a longer presence in retrospective collector jargon than does "rebadge", but both have clear clinical context.

Sub-brand pens were made by big makers using disconnected names and offered for general distribution. WASP has national advertising

re-badged pens took store brand names and applied them to pens made by big makers, again without direct connection on the pen to the native maker.

One can view a re-badge as a sub-type of Sub-Brand (both feature seemingly non-native brand names without apparent connection to core brand), but for practical purposes the two are exclusive, as "sub brand" in collecting context implies general distribution using a non store brand name, while "rebadge' indicates store brand name and sale limited to said store chain.

That in some cases we lack information (proof of general distribution or link to specific store) no doubt leaves pens under discussion without conclusion as to purpose, but does not invalidate the taxonomy itself.

That those unconnected with the business wish to define terms differently ( such as pen collectors) they can do so, it just doesn't overshadow the standard definitions that apply in business.



Again, I disagree. Collector jargon in the context of... collecting... wholly overshadows non-collecting definitions in the setting of collecting. Again... "good is bad" in collecting while "good is good" (one hopes) in the real world. This is not "fringe" to the hobby. It is perhaps the most important lesson to learn when entering the hobby. Indeed, those who spent money buying "good" pens thinking they were good pens, tend to be those who leave the hobby in disappointment.

A sub brand can only apply to a pen made and marketed by the parent company, as per Johns' examples.


As it is generally used, indeed "sub brand" applies to pens made and distributed generally by the parent company, pens lacking the company name. This has been established. "Rebadge" can be viewed as a focused subset of sub-brand as it is made by parent company and also lacks the company name, but as it is for a store it has a store label, and its highly specific nature in practice renders it outside the realm of sub-brand, which has been my baseline point. I offer merely as a sop that one can try to keep it in the penumbra of sub-brand

While David defines ( or seems to) a rebadged pen as one made for another party ( and it can't be a sub brand in Sears case anyway as they owned the name themselves) that only applies if based on an existing model.



In theory it can be a sub-brand, just one that by contract can be sold by only one store, and "based on" is so nebulous as to be irrelevant. But, that is why we use "rebadge" to suggest a pen made by a big maker for a specific seller who owns the new brand name being used. That's the core point.

Many of the Sears pens made by Parker in fact can be viewed as being based on more than one model, thus disqualifying that it was based on just "an" existing model. This of course does not matter, as which model or models the rebadged pens resemble is not key to definition. The re-badging is about the use of a non-Parker store name on a Parker-made product. The pen need not be identical to or limited in feature set to any one known model. It is the "Parker" not the "model" that is re-badged.


Per John: I would not include the bulb-filler Pencopen as a re-badge, because Parker never made a Parker-imprinted bulb filler. So it sounds like we need another category



Pencopen is poorly characterized, no doubt as we lack literature about it. We do not know if it was made for general distribution of for a store. It was at least a sub-brand and does not need a special term. That there are so few found would argue for limited distribution suggesting possibility of store brand, but that is speculation. However, whether Pencopen was a sub-brand or rebadged pen, it matters not that it seems to have poorly resembled general Parker pens and indeed, I would argue that in any case it DOES resemble general Parker pens. It uses Parker plastic and Parker imprints, employs the Parker date code, and indeed uses the Vacumatic filling system with breather tube and multiple squeezes, just simplifying the system by not inverting and intussuscepting the sac, which points us back to Frank Dubiel's comments in 1999, to paraphrase, "the Vacumatic is just an overwrought bulb filler".

Furthermore Parker did make a definite bulb filler as rebadged pen (no "sub-brand" vs "rebadge" debate), which is the Good Service helical web pen, which is documented in Sears catalogues and which carries Parker date code on nibs. The pencopen bears a startling resemblance, down to shape and use of the "Eisenstadt" clip. Here is the Good Service (sears branded pen made by Parker).

Posted Image




Of course as John points out some examples fit neither sub brand or rebadged hence "contrast" or "special order" etc could well apply.


Nah. He's just hedging because we don't know if the Pencopen served the niche of sub-brand or of rebadge. My point is that because we lack info to pin down which category applies, simply limits our ability to draw specific conclusion. it does not mean the pen was not made for one of those purposes.

Too, I raise objection , again, with labeling "Wahl Oxford" a sub-brand, rather than a niche/tier within Wahl. The pens do not not carry a disconnected name. That some look different from others might not matter. If one looked at a 1921 Parker Duofold Senior, a 1941 striped Duofold Ingenue, and an English 1950's Aerometric injection plastic Duofold, one might similarly wonder if Duofold then was a sub-brand of Parker. Don't think so ;)

It's fine to be happy with one's own stand. My point is that the position is not in sync with collector jargon, as with "good". Beyond that one must play as he chooses...

regards

david






David R. Isaacson MD. Website: VACUMANIA.com for quality old pens with full warranty.
Email: isaacson@frontiernet.net

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users