45 replies to this topic

[david i]

Ironically, the Good Service bulb-fill web-pattern pens made by Parker for Sears was prime topic of another recent thread

http://fountainpenbo...lot-of-old-pens

The pen in question arrived yesterday.


Here is my text (yes, reflecting my bias) in that thread, along with image of the Parker pen rebadged for Sears. Do pens have a chassis and/or bones? how much must be shared...

Per me: And, the piece de resistance from this lot. Recall my Advisor profile (and my contributor profile at PENnant Magazine) cites my interest in esoterica. Not kidding when I say grabbing the following pen dwarfs my contentment at finding yet another Vacumatic Burgundy Maxima.
This Good Service pen is a Parker re-badge for Sears. I have Sears documentation (using Parker verbiage), the pen has Parker threads top to bottom, Parker date code on nib, apparently Parker font on nib (I don't insist). Date code corresponds iirc to catalogue (Sears) appearance, Parker nib shape, Parker feed and so forth.

It is a low end pen. If it has gold tone trim, it is thin wash. All I have show mostly (all?) brass. Nib is plated white metal. Bulb filler, essentially a minimalist Vacumatic without the intussuscepted bladder.

I realize this pen won't mean much to most collectors. To those who hunt Parker and who like the esoterica... it is a big deal. Keep in mind how many pens I've handled, what with having photo'd 7000+ over the years, having attended ~ 100 pen shows handling thousands (often mostly the same from one show to next) of pens, having examined private collections etc. Of the six Parker-Good Service webs, this is the first (maybe second) slender brown I've seen and makes the fourth variant among six I've added to my collection... in ten years or so hunting this series.

It's in nice shape for what it is. No crazing/fluorescence. Decent imprint.

regards

david

[John Danza]

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).

I think your example actually proves my point instead of disproves it as is your attempt. There are zero, zip, nada examples of Parker-branded bulb fillers, so none of these can be re-badged Parkers as there were no bulb-filler Parkers to be re-badged. Parker instead received a contract from Sears (in the case of Good Service) for bulb-filling fountain pens and made them using some plastics that they used for their own line. And before you ask, no I've not seen those contracts but it makes absolute sense that they existed because there's no other reason from a business perspective for Parker to have manufactured the pens using a filling system they weren't using themselves unless the customer (i.e. Sears) specified it. So I stand by my assertion that there needs to be a third category called something like "contract manufacture" where we can see the use of a company's production characteristics (imprint types, similar plastics, etc.) in the creation of products for another retailer.


BTW, Frank Dubiel's comment about the Vacumatic, while sounding clever actually is incorrect. He would have been accurate if he had said it about the aerometric filler.

[david i]

I think your example actually proves my point instead of disproves it as is your attempt.

Hi John,

On the contrary

There are zero, zip, nada examples of Parker-branded bulb fillers, so none of these can be re-badged Parkers as there were no bulb-filler Parkers to be re-badged.

There are Parker bulb fillers, they just are not Parker branded. Or to be clear for other readers, there clearly are Parker-made bulb fillers.

However, as per definitions provided earlier, "sub-brand" and "re-badge" are not dependent on filler mechanism used. So, filler mechanism is irrelevant.

If I must pull reference from another brand... there are no USA-made Sheaffer-branded twist fill pens, but in the multitude of conversations about Sheaffer sub-brand pens such as WASP, no one has objected that the WASP "screamer" pattern with lever filler is a sub-brand while the otherwise identical twist-fill version should not be considered a sub-brand.

I'd think that should put the "different filler" objection to rest.

Parker instead received a contract from Sears (in the case of Good Service) for bulb-filling fountain pens and made them using some plastics that they used for their own line.

Parker presumably did strike a deal with Sears, as obviously there otherwise would not be Parker-made Sears-brand pens, but.... there is no need for the word "instead" in your sentence. It is not some sort of either/or. Parker re-branded pens for Sears, which makes the pens re-badged pens. There is nothing in the core definition that requires a re-brand to be identical or similar-to-a-certain-percent of a model made by a company, for the contracted-for-a-store pen to be considered a re-badge. That it was made by a big maker for a store brand is the definiton.

I shouldn't need to mention the following again, though I will. None of the rebadged-for-Sears pens made by Parker are identical to any Parker pen (save for imprint). All show feature/style mixes and tweaks.

And before you ask, no I've not seen those contracts but it makes absolute sense that they existed because there's no other reason from a business perspective for Parker to have manufactured the pens using a filling system they weren't using themselves unless the customer (i.e. Sears) specified it.

I wasn't going to ask

Indeed there is no need to see contracts. That Sears pens are Parker-made is proof both of dealings and of re-badging of Parker pens.

I reiterate, putting a store brand label instead of a Parker (etc) label makes the pen a re-badge. Exercises identifying which elements of the pen resemble which Parker models are worthwhile, but not for reasons of defending re-badge status, once we know the pens were in fact made for a store.

While it is a tangent at best, I note that we have no evidence Sears requested a bulb filler. We know that Parker made at least two bulb filling brand (not Parker model) labels, Goodservice (re-badge for Sears) and Pencopen (currently uncertain if re-badge or sub-brand). These are some of the cheapest (in price, for Sears' Good Service and in apparent quality for Pencopen) produced by Parker, and it is not at all unreasonable that Parker proposed the bulb-filler to the stores, not other way around. It would be a way to offer a cheap filling system for stores (or markets) that wanted dirt cheap pens.

So I stand by my assertion that there needs to be a third category called something like "contract manufacture" where we can see the use of a company's production characteristics (imprint types, similar plastics, etc.) in the creation of products for another retailer.

Per prior definitions, I would observe that contract manufacture for stores is the very definition of "re-badge". The DIamond Medal Vac Fil (for Sears) which you've observed at length and whose rebadged status I believe you've never found at fault, is exactly a pen that uses a company's (Parker's) production characteristics in the creation of product for another (Sears) retailer.

Good Service is identical. Your only apparent objection is that it uses special filler. I note that special filler does not violate your contract manufacture definition which in fact is shown in my next line to be identical to the Diamond Medal Vac Fill, which you accept as a re-badge.

BTW, Frank Dubiel's comment about the Vacumatic, while sounding clever actually is incorrect. He would have been accurate if he had said it about the aerometric filler.

No worries, I've never invoked Frank as an Absolute Guru, but still his phrase seems on target. Aeros and Vacs and Bulb relate...


regards

d

[david i]

Was just hunting for some Dorics, when came across this pen, part of that 2010 "1000 pen hoard" iirc.

regards

david

[Hugh]

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).

I think your example actually proves my point instead of disproves it as is your attempt. There are zero, zip, nada examples of Parker-branded bulb fillers, so none of these can be re-badged Parkers as there were no bulb-filler Parkers to be re-badged. Parker instead received a contract from Sears (in the case of Good Service) for bulb-filling fountain pens and made them using some plastics that they used for their own line. And before you ask, no I've not seen those contracts but it makes absolute sense that they existed because there's no other reason from a business perspective for Parker to have manufactured the pens using a filling system they weren't using themselves unless the customer (i.e. Sears) specified it. So I stand by my assertion that there needs to be a third category called something like "contract manufacture" where we can see the use of a company's production characteristics (imprint types, similar plastics, etc.) in the creation of products for another retailer.


BTW, Frank Dubiel's comment about the Vacumatic, while sounding clever actually is incorrect. He would have been accurate if he had said it about the aerometric filler.

+1 I'm right with you on this John!!

Regards
Hugh

[Hugh]

Hi David

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.

To simply dismiss standard definitions in favour or a definition that suits is a slippery slope, in "pendom" you can make definitions that suit a purpose but that doesn't make them the definitive definition. You do have to look at it from a makers perspective otherwise the definitions are just ones made for convenience, and that's all right but it's just not correct. To say "we've called it X for years" doesn't make it correct, whether it's widely used or not. The good=bad is a clear example of a meaning being used so out of context as to verge on absurd, yet it's accepted in pen terms but that doesn't make it correct just a terminology that has crept in.

We've just about beaten "sub brand" to death.

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.

One of the fundamental features of a sub brand is that the maker owns the name, if the pen is marketed under a name owned by another entity then it can't be a sub brand. Nice try to redefine "rebadged" and apply it to the entire companies output whatever it was called!! While I always appreciate the "big picture" view this is stretching the term to breaking point, while I follow the logic it's a bit too "open" imo. If as you state the Sears models are not based on standard Parker models then clearly made to Sears specifications (or specifically made for Sears) which places them outside a simple rebadge and adds weight to Johns' use of "contract" manufactured as a separate term.

So Parker can rebadge a pen for Sears which is sold under a name other than Parker, yet using your logic Wahl can't rebadge a pen from a model all ready in it's catalog and sell it under a name it owns (okay I can't prove Wahl owned Monitor) ...because it's a sub brand. What's the practical difference? Hasn't the pen in reality been rebadged?

Regards
Hugh

[david i]

To simply dismiss standard definitions in favour or a definition that suits is a slippery slope, in "pendom" you can make definitions that suit a purpose but that doesn't make them the definitive definition.

Nah. First, it isn't a slippery slope. It's the whole slope. Nothing has been done "simply". Rather it has been pointed out that hobby jargon differs in many instances from casual/general definitions, the most basic example being that "good means bad" in hobby language. It might've been Rob Astyk who gave birth to a bovine some years back about the use of "vintage" in pendom for anything other than the age of a wine, railing against its usage in pendom (and elsewhere) for non-wine items of unspecified age. So it goes. Language evolves, and hobby jargon applies special definitions.

I'm not sure what is a "definitive definition", as it is not something I've invoked. I've merely presented actual usage of key terms in our hobby. If people are content to think that a good pen actually is good, because that is the general non pendom meaning of the word, then to each his own, and let him make his own way in the hobby based on that premise

You do have to look at it from a makers perspective otherwise the definitions are just ones made for convenience, and that's all right but it's just not correct. To say "we've called it X for years" doesn't make it correct, whether it's widely used or not. The good=bad is a clear example of a meaning being used so out of context as to verge on absurd, yet it's accepted in pen terms but that doesn't make it correct just a terminology that has crept in.

I don't know that we have to look at it from the manufacturers' perspective, but even if we wished to, I believe you and all others here do not have any documentation as to what that perspective specifically was or if it existed, regarding the two terms in play, so that point is rather moot.

Good= bad is not absurd. It is, rather the general rule in collectables fields.

We've just about beaten "sub brand" to death.

So?

One of the fundamental features of a sub brand is that the maker owns the name, if the pen is marketed under a name owned by another entity then it can't be a sub brand.

Which rather was my key point. I was throwing you guys a bone, allowing a linkage between sub-brand and and re-badge. Labels can be used with permission, keeping the door open, but my view has been that sub-brand and re-badge were exclusive, which seemed to generate some complaint. Now we're getting complaint the opposite way... in same thread. Let's stay focused.

Nice try to redefine "rebadged" and apply it to the entire companies output whatever it was called!!

Surely you don't address me with this point.

I have defined "rebadged" in the pendom context, using routine and well recognized examples. I've redefined nothing. Some have objected to recognized definitions. I've offered to keep them focused on proper pendom usage.

While I always appreciate the "big picture" view this is stretching the term to breaking point, while I follow the logic it's a bit too "open" imo. If as you state the Sears models are not based on standard Parker models then clearly made to Sears specifications (or specifically made for Sears) which places them outside a simple rebadge and adds weight to Johns' use of "contract" manufactured as a separate term.

You are going straw man, using your own custom interpretations of my points and arguing against yourself as if you are arguing against me.

The realities of pendom terminology- focusing on Sears which has the best known and best characterized examples of rebadged pens- are that, first, many Sears pens in the 1930's were made by Parker and were rebadged (relabeled for specific store sale) for Sears sales, and, second, that all of them bear some relation to Parker pens but that none of them represent just a single identical model differentiated only by Sears-specific imprints.

John did not suggest that Sears pens all told are not re-badges. I pointed out that the same way he considers Sears-specific Diamond Medal and Webster pens to be rebadges, so too was the one example that gave him doubt, the Good Service bulb fillers. Can't play it the other way. Sears' Diamond Medal etc are the very archetypes of rebadged pens. And, yet again, I note that mirroring all other features of a given model save for imprint, is not a requirement for the re-badge term

So Parker can rebadge a pen for Sears which is sold under a name other than Parker, yet using your logic Wahl can't rebadge a pen from a model all ready in it's catalog and sell it under a name it owns (okay I can't prove Wahl owned Monitor) ...because it's a sub brand. What's the practical difference? Hasn't the pen in reality been rebadged?

Regards
Hugh

Again, in your last paragraph, you are engaging in straw man, advancing an argument I did not make as if i did make it, then arguing against it as if you are arguing against something i did say. Not helpful

I will instead present my own argument, so you can argue against what I did say, rather than what I didn't. As pertaining to your last paragraph, Parker can rebadge a pen for Sears, which then sells the pen under the non-Parker name that Sears owns, and indeed that is a definition of rebadging.

Wahl can relabel a typical model (in this case one not shown in any publicly available catalogue) and can sell it under a name it owns as a sub-brand pen or can have it sold through a store under a store brand name as a re-badged pen.

As I (and you) don't know if the pen (Monitor) sold in general fashion by Wahl or was sold by a store with Monitor representing a store brand, we cannot say if it is a Wahl sub-brand or a rebadged Wahl.

The difference, as you request, is that general sale by Wahl of Monitors embraces the pendom term "sub-brand" as with the Sheaffer-made WASP, while Monitor if a store brand sold by a specific store chain would represent the pendom term of "rebadge", as with Parker's Sears Diamond Medal, Webster, and Good Service pens, Parker's Woolworth Safford Fifth Avenue, and a variety of Wahl-Eversharp's Montgomery Ward Gold Bond pens, as well as at least some of the Gregg Writing School pens made by Wahl and Sheaffer. Clear purpose differences are automatically indicated by the two terms, and in hobbydom we aim for specificity.

regards

d

[Hugh]

Hi David,

So Parker can rebadge a pen for Sears which is sold under a name other than Parker, yet using your logic Wahl can't rebadge a pen from a model all ready in it's catalog and sell it under a name it owns (okay I can't prove Wahl owned Monitor) ...because it's a sub brand. What's the practical difference? Hasn't the pen in reality been rebadged?

Regards
Hugh

Again, in your last paragraph, you are engaging in straw man, advancing an argument I did not make as if i did make it, then arguing against it as if you are arguing against something i did say. Not helpful

I will instead present my own argument, so you can argue against what I did say, rather than what I didn't. As pertaining to your last paragraph, Parker can rebadge a pen for Sears, which then sells the pen under the non-Parker name that Sears owns, and indeed that is a definition of rebadging.

Wahl can relabel a typical model (in this case one not shown in any publicly available catalogue) and can sell it under a name it owns as a sub-brand pen or can have it sold through a store under a store brand name as a re-badged pen.

As I (and you) don't know if the pen (Monitor) sold in general fashion by Wahl or was sold by a store with Monitor representing a store brand, we cannot say if it is a Wahl sub-brand or a rebadged Wahl.

The difference, as you request, is that general sale by Wahl of Monitors embraces the pendom term "sub-brand" as with the Sheaffer-made WASP, while Monitor if a store brand sold by a specific store chain would represent the pendom term of "rebadge", as with Parker's Sears Diamond Medal, Webster, and Good Service pens, Parker's Woolworth Safford Fifth Avenue, and a variety of Wahl-Eversharp's Montgomery Ward Gold Bond pens, as well as at least some of the Gregg Writing School pens made by Wahl and Sheaffer. Clear purpose differences are automatically indicated by the two terms, and in hobbydom we aim for specificity.

regards

d

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/

I'm not sure the statement "Again, in your last paragraph, you are engaging in straw man, advancing an argument I did not make ..." is accurate.

Regards
Hugh

[Hugh]

Gee , that one line " From what I've seen I'd call it both a re-badged and a sub-brand pen ." has caused way for debate than it should !! It looked such a simple statement......

[david i]

Gee , that one line " From what I've seen I'd call it both a re-badged and a sub-brand pen ." has caused way for debate than it should !! It looked such a simple statement......

Fora such as this are intended to explore all aspects of collecting pens, including terms.

But, you did write both

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

and

"One of the fundamental features of a sub brand is that the maker owns the name, if the pen is marketed under a name owned by another entity then it can't be a sub brand."


Therein rests a bit of contradiction


-d

[Hugh]

Gee , that one line " From what I've seen I'd call it both a re-badged and a sub-brand pen ." has caused way for debate than it should !! It looked such a simple statement......

Fora such as this are intended to explore all aspects of collecting pens, including terms.

But, you did write both

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

and

"One of the fundamental features of a sub brand is that the maker owns the name, if the pen is marketed under a name owned by another entity then it can't be a sub brand."

Therein rests a bit of contradiction

-d

Not at all. I've assumed Monitor is a Wahl owned brand name.

Regards
Hugh

Edit to add: It has made a change from doing the "books"

Edited by Hugh, 05 June 2012 - 05:49 AM.

[John Danza]

Guys, it seems that we're talking past each other and won't come to a common ground, so maybe better to move beyond the overall definition discussion and go back to the subject of Monitor. Just thinkin'.

[penmanila]

strange coincidence.... i was cleaning up some second- and third-tier pens from my stash today when i stumbled on this thread, and remembered one of the pens i was toying with. (surprisingly, the syringe filler still works!) there's the typical plating wear to the clip that david nishimura was talking about.

[david i]

Not at all. I've assumed Monitor is a Wahl owned brand name.

And that's fine... it just isn't reflected in what was written. I had to address the writing, not unprinted assumption.

That said, I lack evidence for sub-brand vs rebadge.

regards

david

[david i]

strange coincidence.... i was cleaning up some second- and third-tier pens from my stash today when i stumbled on this thread, and remembered one of the pens i was toying with. (surprisingly, the syringe filler still works!) there's the typical plating wear to the clip that david nishimura was talking about.

Very nice! Looks like same pen as mine, save for filling system. At risk of tweaking John, must we not consider the syringe version of my lever filler (both burgundy/black with same contour) to qualify as either sub-brand or re-badge (depending on the marketing of the pen) just because Wahl-branded pens did not use the syringe?


regards

d

[Hugh]

...must we not consider the syringe version of my lever filler (both burgundy/black with same contour) to qualify as either sub-brand or re-badge (depending on the marketing of the pen) just because Wahl-branded pens did not use the syringe?


regards

d

Hi David,

I thought we'd done "sub brand" to the point of death!! The issue of sub brand is about placement in a companies structure, for example WASP was a Sheaffer sub brand which was not intended to be on the same level as the Sheaffer brand name in terms of public perception of quality or price ( financially it may have been a big earner, I don't know). A sub brand pen needs no connection to a pen in the parent companies inventory regarding design. If Monitor was a name owned by Wahl then the name is the sub brand.

The step from bulb filler to syringe filler is fairly minor, and Wahl did make plunger fillers (..a reverse syringe filler..). Iirc you've argued that a bulb filler is basically a reverse vac- filler ( talking about Pencopens I think) so we've sort of been there before . I'd be happy to call it a rebadged pen (or a pen based on a known Whal product if that suits better) on my definition ( cough#$#splutter#&^).

Regards
Hugh

[david i]

Hi David,

I thought we'd done "sub brand" to the point of death!!

Nah. Nothing is done to death while there remain issues folks wish to explore

The issue of sub brand is about placement in a companies structure, for example WASP was a Sheaffer sub brand which was not intended to be on the same level as the Sheaffer brand name in terms of public perception of quality or price ( financially it may have been a big earner, I don't know). A sub brand pen needs no connection to a pen in the parent companies inventory regarding design. If Monitor was a name owned by Wahl then the name is the sub brand.

Let's simplify.

Sub-brand: Pen made by a recognized manufacturer but employing a different brand name, for distribution by that manufacturer.


Re-rebadge: Pen made by a recognized manufacturer but employing a different brand name, for distribution by a specific store chain or similar agency.

All else is variably extraneous. A sub-brand can look similar to or different from the core-brand. It can have similar or different engineering. It can be for wide distribution or narrow distribution, at the whim of the manufacturer. The best example of sub-brand is Sheaffer's WASP pens, which generally saw wide (national ads) distribution and which looked generally different from core product, but that is simply example, not requirement.

Re-badged pens implicitly are for limited distribution, by a specific store chain or agency, can look similar to or different from the core-brand, and can have similar or different engineering. Yes, I would expect that in many cases the brand name applied to the pen for sale by one store chain will be a name owned/trademarked of the store, but I can imagine it not having to be so. The pen maker could propose a brand name which it uses only for the affected store chain for the duration of contract, but which remains property of the manufacturer for later use.

Key is the distribution of the re-labeling of the pen.

Moving beyond theory and into practice, this stuff matters a bit as the two biggest makers from the 1930's, Parker and Sheaffer, as fate would have it both put out a respectable number of re-labeled (the generic term) 1930's pens. They served largely different purposes. Sheaffer's mostly (WASP brand) were for general distribution with broad advertising. Parker's were for a mere store chain (Sears, as Diamond Medal, Webster, Good Service), and thus were more narrowly distributed under store labels, the saving grace (it is a Big Saving Grace) relative to today's collectors being that Sears was so monstrous in scale then, that we have enough pens left today to actually find some, AND we have Sears catalogues that very well illustrate what was made. Indeed, we have more information about Sears pens made by Parker than we have for the entire brands of, say, Leboeuf and probably Chilton. Still, the Sheaffer sub-brand presence today generally dwarfs the Parker re-badge presence. Had Parker made these pens for some smaller store, we might know nothing about them and nearly never find any (hmmm... Pencopen?)

Getting back to pendom, proper, and exploring the usefulness of these terms, we also have what appear to be clearly re-badged Wahls and Wateman pens, made by those companies to be sold by Montgomery Ward as Gold Bond. These pens are more scarce by far than Parker-for-Sears pens (maybe Monkey Ward was smaller than Sears... I don't know). And we have Sheaffer and Wahl pens made for distribution by the Gregg Writing School as Gregg pens ( re-badge, not sub-brand). Putting these pens in context requires solid definitions.

And, there are pens for which limited to nonexistent information limits our ability to assign category, examples of note including Monitor by Wahl and Pencopen by Parker. We don't know if these were just poor-man, poorly advertised sub-brands (the WASP of Wahl and Parker, respectively) or were made for some store chain small enough or non-catalogue based such that we lack store catalogue information. I'm not engaging in a brawl as to which category applies, because gut-feeling is all we appear to have. If someone has info about these names, then we can advance.

And there are other cases that hit the gray zone for other reasons., and this brings up a subject that perhaps has never been formally raised, namely the use of brand names on National Pen Company (all those flat-tops of varying quality: Lincoln, Lakeside, Gold Bond, Gold Medal, Diamond Medal, and more. Forgive me if Lakeside is not National]. Some of these National Pens were clear re-badges for stores. National made Sears Diamond Medal and Montgomery Ward Gold Bond before Parker did. But, I don't know of any pen sold as a National. All National's pens are other-branded. Were all re-badged for stores, but we don't know which stores carried the other labels? Were some (e.g.. DM and GB) obvious rebadges, while the other pens were widely distributed by National itslef? Even if so, would those other brands (eg. Gold Medal, Lincoln), thus be sub-brands if there were no actual National-branded pens? Or would those then just be brands, proper, since they were the core self-distributed output from a company that never used its own brand? I suppose (ignoring trucks) that General Motors cars in USA can be viewed then as National Pen Co.

GM made Cadillac and Buick, but sold no cars as General Motors brand.

But, in order to play with the above gray zone cases, we must have a solid sense of the black and white, which is why I pursue this sort of conversation

The step from bulb filler to syringe filler is fairly minor, and Wahl did make plunger fillers (..a reverse syringe filler..). Iirc you've argued that a bulb filler is basically a reverse vac- filler ( talking about Pencopens I think) so we've sort of been there before . I'd be happy to call it a rebadged pen (or a pen based on a known Whal product if that suits better) on my definition ( cough#$#splutter#&^).

Regards
Hugh

While exploration of filling styles and of connections amongst fillers has merit unto itself, it is not core to the issue of "sub-brand" and of "re-badge" though John did feel that it can. I disagree on that point. So, I'll address the bulb, noting it has nothing to do with the jargon discussion in play. The bulb (with sealed barrel-section and breather tube) is a simple and effective filler. A Vacumatic is something of an overwrought bulb filler, designed to have the bulb squeeze into the pen via plunger, rather than requiring a pinch. Would I have minded if all Parker Vacs had used simple bulb? Nah. Would make restoration of that great pen much easier

The Pencopen/Good Service bulb fillers and the Monitor syringe fillers indeed use different fillers than what is found in their respective manufacturers label. So it goes.

Among these three pens, we know Good Service is a re-badge. We don't know about Pencopen and Monitor, because we don't know the method of marketing them.

This thread has had great merit for me-- even if you guys still have disagreement with me on terms-- as it has let me further clarify my own views of some fascinating pens that fall amongst the cracks of usual hobby placement.

regards

david

[david i]

To pull in from another thread...

Here are some pens made by a couple Major Makers labeled Gold Bond (Montgomery Ward store brand). Familiar?

regards

david

[Hugh]

Hi David,

Interestingly I have a National branded combo, so National did make some pens under their own name.

Regards
Hugh

[david i]

Then (staying on notion of re-badge) there are the Rexall drug store branded pens (eg. Belmont) that were variably made by other bigger makers including (maybe) Moore and Kraker. The Moore-made pens (if there were Moore made pens... at least I believe there were) are clear re-badges. Moore made Moore pens, and lent its manufacturing to a relabeled store brand

By time Kraker was making celluloid pens for Rexall, it already had lost lawsuit with Sheaffer and it seems made no pens at that time actually named Kraker. So, the Belmont was a Kraker re-badge for Rexall, but was not re-badged by a maker that sold NO pens under its own name! (similar it seems to National Pen Company noted earlier) Is it still a re-badge or is this then a case where John's "Contract Pen", a term I admit I did not like for the context he proposed it, actually apply?

I suppose if National sold some of its own pens (distributed them) even with non-"National" names, those would be brands or semi-sub-brands, similar to GM's Chevy car.

But, even these gray zone cases would not seem sufficiently and interestingly... gray... if we didn't well define the black and white cases first.


Here's a Belmont for Rexall made-- probably-- by Kraker, at least the imprint resembles that seen on other Kraker's and on the early hard rubber Kraker-marked pens before Kraker was sued by Sheaffer

regards

david