143 replies to this topic

[Euro Vintage]

Friends

I vaguely remember this subject being raised in the discussion of some other issues, but having seen this pen recently on eBay transparently admitting to having been "blackened", I wish to learn more about this aspect of pendom.

When / Why would anyone wish to dress up a vintage pen by blackening the BHR ?

How easy is it to tell if a pen had been blackened in the past ?

What are the signs?

How long would the re-blackened BHR last for - before it fades to oxidised brownish colour again?

I do not plan to try it, but how would one re-blacken a pen: dipping in some sort of black resin / ink...?

If you know the pen had been (re)-blackened, what would be your reaction: put it down (as it is now a re-manufactured vintage) or continue to consider it?

What about red / cardinal HR, would they fade and could you re-colourise them too?

Regards

Tri

[david i]

aaaaAAAANNNNNDDDD..... OFF to the races....

-d

[Hugh]

Hi Tri,

Okay, a touchy subject to some !! The "expert" ( or so it seems to me) on blackening product is Syd aka "Wahlnut" who moderates the Wahl forum on the FPN and post here as well , this link to his product. I don't dabble enough in the pens that would suit re blackeneing but it seems that it would negatively affect the value of high end ( rarer) items at present ( the "real deal" in pristine condition is the goal). Personally I see little issue with using a blackening product on a pen you intent to use to make it visually appealing.

Regards
Hugh

[ihimlen]

Seems that the seller updated the description and it now says that the oxidation was removed as opposed to the pen being re-blackened.

[vintage penman]

A re blackened pen will be obvious - the colour is too even, often a somewhat dead shade of black with the inevitable brush marks in tricky areas if inexpertly applied. I have a scruffy daily use Waterman 56 that has been done. Fine if you want a black user pen. Personally, I don't mind the oxidation but at the price paid for this I'm not in the least concerned.

As for better examples then the process is likely to result in a reduction in value.

[Deb]

I think that Syd Saperstein's Potion No 9 is the only commercially-available re-blacking method available now. All the pens I've come across treated with this preparation were quite obviously re-blacked. In any case, a dab of polish on a cloth is all the test you need as it's a surface treatment and comes off easily. Sadly, with chased pens it doesn't come off completely and it leaves a mess behind. Why would you want to remove it? It's usually very poorly applied and the pen looks worse than it would have done if it had been left alone. Even those that have been done a little more “professionally” look like what they are: painted pens.

There are other methods of returning the pen to its original colour, all by reduction of the surface, i.e. abrasion or chemical reduction. Red or mottled hard rubber can only be “renewed” by these methods, so far as I'm aware.

To answer your question, painted or dyed pens will not show further oxidisation as the surface is covered. Pens returned to their original colour chemically or by abrasion begin the oxidising process all over again immediately.

There's a whole ethical issue here which I won't repeat at length as it has been done to death in the past and it does tend to bore. Sufficient to say that the main reason for re-blacking is to pass off a sow's ear as a silk purse. In actuality, it greatly reduces the value of pens.

[BamaPen]

OK, I am a re-blackener of pens. I admit it. I use Syd Saperstein's Potion No. 9, applying it carefully according to his directions. But, I only use it on pens that would never be considered as pristine examples that have acquired a "patina" with age. I am fully aware of the varying opinions on this topic among collectors, and I would never attempt to pass off a re-blackened pen as original. I agree with Deb that the re-blackening would be pretty obvious to a knowledgable collector.

I certainly would not re-blacken a rare pen and there would be no need to re-blacken one found in pristine condition.

The pens that I have re-blackened were ones that I acquired at low cost and in deplorable condition. These pens were not just oxidized, they were oxidized unevenly, with their color varying wildly from deep black to olive brown, and they also had greatly reduced chasing. In short, they would never be a highly desirable collectable item.

As a small-time collector, I decided to make my sows ears look a bit better and I succeeded. I maintain a database detailing all my pens and I clearly indicate on the records when a pen has been re-blackened, and what was used.

Deb is also correct in saying that applying some polish results in black residue on the polish cloth, clearly revealing that re-blackening has taken place. I use Tryphon Pen Polish and even though some of the black comes off, the resulting appearance is immensely superior to that when I purchased the pen.

To me, pens are like other antiques...when the item has deteriorated beyond a certain point, it is all right, even preferable, to restore it. Great art is often restored, by cleaning and/or repainting (don't bring up the icon in Porutgal, please). The first time I saw Rembrandt's "Black Watch" in the Reichsmuseum in Amsterdam, it was quite dark overall and really rather difficult to see the detail. Recently I saw it again, post restoration, and it is a vibrant painting once more, much like it must have been when Rembrandt painted it.

My first fountain pen was my grandfather's old Hudson. It is a bakelite pen and was beginning to crumble at the section/barrel joint. I sent it to a professional repair person who reinforced the inside of the barrel so that the section fit properly and he also gave the entire surface a good polishing. That pen now looks and functions much more like brand new than its former deteriorated state. Have I diminished its value by this repair? Is this different than re-blackening? Is this different than polishing an oxidized gold overlay? I can't say, but it seems much the same to me.

John Hubbard

[John Danza]

OK, I'll dive into the pool on this. I too have blackened a pen and admitted to it previously. While it's not a rare pen, it's certainly somewhat scarce and valuable; a Parker Black Giant. David knows the story on this one, since I got it from him in a trade for a nice Vac Band Senior Maxima.

So why did I do it? Because while I liked the overall quality of the pen's material wear, the discoloration was very unattractive. It was blotchy olive green. However, the imprints were pretty decent (Black Giants are notorious for weak imprints originally, so this one was not bad). Here's the only photo I have of the pen originally, a spread that David sent me before the trade.





I thought this pen too nice from a material wear perspective to be stuck with such a crappy look, so decided to have it reblackened. While I considered Syd's product, I wanted to make sure this came out right. So I sent it to Giovanni Abrate at Tryphon. He had developed a process that was said to be the best. Only he did the work, although he did franchise it to Richard Binder as well. I don't believe either of these guys does it anymore however. Anyway, the pen came out great, as you can see from the photo below. Should I sell the pen, I would always advise that it has been blackened.




Obviously there's a huge "religion" on whether or not this is ok from a restoration perspective. Frankly, I don't think it's a big deal if done right and noted by the seller. Let's face it, there's a lot of shady stuff going on in our hobby with pens, such as people making new HR caps, attaching new HR cap lips where the originals were cracked, etc. The particular pen in the auction that Tri started the thread with has been polished to death, which I think is particularly crappy because it makes the pen's surface look like plastic. You can see it in the way the imprint looks like it's been "wiped" and the dots that appear on the surface (check the photo of the cap imprint and you'll see all the little dots). That pen doesn't look original, because HR never shined that way originally.

I guess my bottom line is that there are far worse things you can do to a pen (and to the hobby) than blackening a badly discolored pen.

[John Danza]

There's a whole ethical issue here which I won't repeat at length as it has been done to death in the past and it does tend to bore. Sufficient to say that the main reason for re-blacking is to pass off a sow's ear as a silk purse. In actuality, it greatly reduces the value of pens.

I think you're going a tad overboard by claiming that blackening a pen is the equivalent of deception. While you're not using those words, that's clearly what you meant. It depends on the seller and comments that are made. As I noted before, there's a lot of true fraud going on in our hobby under the terms "restoration". Heck, there are actually people out there that can cut off crazed celluloid and restore it to look like original and advertise those services. Then there are folks that replate clips and trim. What constitutes restoration and what constitutes deception?

[david i]

Hi John,

I think you're going a tad overboard by claiming that blackening a pen is the equivalent of deception. While you're not using those words, that's clearly what you meant. It depends on the seller and comments that are made. As I noted before, there's a lot of true fraud going on in our hobby under the terms "restoration". Heck, there are actually people out there that can cut off crazed celluloid and restore it to look like original and advertise those services. Then there are folks that replate clips and trim. What constitutes restoration and what constitutes deception?

Regarding the highlighted sentence... i don't agree.

We certainly can discuss what elements or context, if any, about the blackening of old pens constitutes deception, but I don't see anything "overboard" in the suggestion that it is that. Anyone who has reblackened a pen and sold it without full disclosure can be reasonably considered to have committed deception. Clearly this occurs... so there we are.

regards

d

[Deb]

There's a whole ethical issue here which I won't repeat at length as it has been done to death in the past and it does tend to bore. Sufficient to say that the main reason for re-blacking is to pass off a sow's ear as a silk purse. In actuality, it greatly reduces the value of pens.

I think you're going a tad overboard by claiming that blackening a pen is the equivalent of deception. While you're not using those words, that's clearly what you meant. It depends on the seller and comments that are made. As I noted before, there's a lot of true fraud going on in our hobby under the terms "restoration". Heck, there are actually people out there that can cut off crazed celluloid and restore it to look like original and advertise those services. Then there are folks that replate clips and trim. What constitutes restoration and what constitutes deception?

Hi John

You will note that I didn't say the "only" reason. I said the "main" reason. That leaves me quite safely on board, I think. I am perfectly prepared to accept that there are other reasons, such as the person who re-blacks a common pen as a daily user. That, of course may lead to problems of its own, in the passage of time as collections are sold, perhaps by those who inherit them and don't know what's original and what's re-blacked. Leaving that aside, though, the majority of re-blacked pens that have come my way have been blacked by sellers in hope of an increased price. Never, in my experience, is there an admission that the pen has been re-blacked. When it's undeclared, that seems to me to be an attempt to pass the pen off as something it is not. I always return re-blacked pens.

There's no need to go re-blacking pens for resale. I'll pay good money for BHR and BCHR that hasn't been messed around with, in the certainty that I have a good market for it. From my point of view, re-blacking mostly fails to convince and it's a source of distrust in the BHR market.

[BamaPen]

Perhaps it is time to ask what sort of repairs to a pen are acceptable and which ones aren't.

I'm neither a dealer, a long-time collector, or a collector with deep pockets allowing me to purchase many expensive pens. I do enjoy finding good examples of the few brands that I've focused on, and I'll generally buy even a down-and-out pen if it fills a niche in my collection. When such a pen is dirty and scratched, I clean it, use various abrasives to clear up the scratches, and polish it back to a nice shine. I've carefully polished years of grime off of nibs to make them gleam like new. And yes, I've reblackened BHR pens that were truly ugly in their coats of blotchy olive brown. Not only that, but I've used Loctite 408 to glue a long crack in a BHR cap. It isn't perfect, but that crack won't grow longer.

I also like for my pens to work, although I don't carry fragile ones around with me regularly. I've replaced ink sacs, vac-fil seals, snorkel seals and such, and I've had bent nibs restored to working order by Mike Matsuyama and retipped by Greg Minuskin. I bought a pen with no nib and found a presumably authentic replacement to fit it. I've even swapped a good, unbrassed pocket clip from one Conklin crescent filler (a true parts pen) to replace the brassed clip on another pen (the clips were identical to my eye).

Some of my repairs are probably obvious; others aren't. But, all of them do something to the integrity of the pen as it arrived at 2012. These pens were dirty, scratched, corroded, bent, and missing key parts when I got them, and now they are clean, shiny, polished, straight, have all their parts attached, and actually write.

I have some pens that, because of my efforts, work properly and look nicer than they did when I acquired them. My budget is such that if I can get a structurally sound example for a few dollars and do the work to make it look good and work well, then I don't have to break the bank to pay hundreds for a pristine example (which may, after all, have had some work done to it as well).

So, where do we draw the line? Y'all tell me.

John Hubbard

[vintage penman]

Perhaps it is time to ask what sort of repairs to a pen are acceptable and which ones aren't.

I'm neither a dealer, a long-time collector, or a collector with deep pockets allowing me to purchase many expensive pens. I do enjoy finding good examples of the few brands that I've focused on, and I'll generally buy even a down-and-out pen if it fills a niche in my collection. When such a pen is dirty and scratched, I clean it, use various abrasives to clear up the scratches, and polish it back to a nice shine. I've carefully polished years of grime off of nibs to make them gleam like new. And yes, I've reblackened BHR pens that were truly ugly in their coats of blotchy olive brown. Not only that, but I've used Loctite 408 to glue a long crack in a BHR cap. It isn't perfect, but that crack won't grow longer.

I also like for my pens to work, although I don't carry fragile ones around with me regularly. I've replaced ink sacs, vac-fil seals, snorkel seals and such, and I've had bent nibs restored to working order by Mike Matsuyama and retipped by Greg Minuskin. I bought a pen with no nib and found a presumably authentic replacement to fit it. I've even swapped a good, unbrassed pocket clip from one Conklin crescent filler (a true parts pen) to replace the brassed clip on another pen (the clips were identical to my eye).

Some of my repairs are probably obvious; others aren't. But, all of them do something to the integrity of the pen as it arrived at 2012. These pens were dirty, scratched, corroded, bent, and missing key parts when I got them, and now they are clean, shiny, polished, straight, have all their parts attached, and actually write.

I have some pens that, because of my efforts, work properly and look nicer than they did when I acquired them. My budget is such that if I can get a structurally sound example for a few dollars and do the work to make it look good and work well, then I don't have to break the bank to pay hundreds for a pristine example (which may, after all, have had some work done to it as well).

So, where do we draw the line? Y'all tell me.

John Hubbard

Good question really. Where does one draw the line ? Anyway, with many old pens what you have in front of you has been repaired, patched up, modified and generally messed with over several decades beforehand. Anything you do will have relatively little impact on value of an user grade example - it will simply prolong its working life after a fashion. If we are talking about prime examples then what is done is an entirely different ball game an potentially very expensive if it is incorrect.

Edited by vintage penman, 08 October 2012 - 09:59 PM.

[Roger W.]

That you can always tell something is reblacked is a load of CRAP!!!

OK, here is the truth on reblacking. Most people want a black hard rubber pen and most ain't too picky how it got there. If you are selling pens you will get more money for a black hard rubber pen - just go to the prior sentence - that is where the demand is.

I'm not going to reblack anything but, I've already lost the fight as dealers reblack pens and pen shows are deeply tainted in altered pens. All of you that believe that if something is done to a pen it is the right thing to do to tell the buyer - please remove your head from your backside because IT SIMPLY ISN'T DONE!!! I can tell you how many dealers have ever told me hard rubber pens had been reblacked - ONCE. They were badly reblacked Boston's and I just wanted them no mater condition - Boston's are a little uncommon. Go around the shows and start asking dealers if their pens are reblacked. I've never taken the direct approach so I'd be interested if we find out all shiny black pens at shows are just naturally occurring pristine examples. I know for a fact that many high end BCHR pens are reblacked because the dealer was touting what a swell job was done on them (as I wouldn't have been a buyer in this case I don't count this as a dealer disclosure to me as a buyer). A large collector of BCHR pens many years ago sold out all of his BCHR due to the lack of faith that could be put into BCHR due to reblacking of pens. This lack of confidence continues to exist and I think we have to embrace that it is likely all BCHR has been reblacked and we aren't going to be able to reasonably detect it. Keep in mind that alterations do not attach to pens (there is not a CARFAX if that gets it for you) and the first guy might know it was reblacked but the second guy might not so honest representation can be made because it is really hard to tell with reblacking.

The practice of reblacking is so commonplace that you should accept that it is more likely than not that the shiny black hard rubber pen you are looking at is probably reblacked - doesn't have to be but, I would take that as your opening premise especially from a dealer or at a pen show. If we get to this opening premise perhaps we get past the fear that BCHR buyers don't know what they are getting goes away as that has had a huge minus on the price of BCHR pens. Because what does reblacking do to a pen for the most part? Primarily it just paints it black. It might penetrate a layer or two but it may not be getting past the base of the oxidization. You could argue that it is stopping oxidization. BCHR doesn't oxidize horribly to start with - primarinly turns browns and olives but, the BCHR doesn't often deteriorate too badly itself. So if there is oxidization below the surface it probably isn't doing to much after you've painted on love potion #9 or whatever you do shy of bleach because that is just that stupid. The nice thing is that this is kinda built into the price as BCHR badly trails celluloid in the prices that they now bring to what they used to fetch.

I think reblacking is done to make it pretty as we are a user driven hobby and that's OK. So reblacking for collector's is primarily fraud and some dealers do this. Look over the overall condition of the pen and don't strongly consider the depth of the black - might be real, might be pretty, could be both - could be pretty but, not real. The fact that it is black does matter though and I can't dismiss that from the equation. That it may have gotten there by reblacking cannot be ignored. Therefore, as I've said, I think we need to embrace that it may be black artificially.

Roger W.

[david i]

Perhaps it is time to ask what sort of repairs to a pen are acceptable and which ones aren't.

SNIP

So, where do we draw the line? Y'all tell me.

John Hubbard

Hi John,

This topic truly is an oldie and a goodie (same chat 12 years ago. Same lack of answers) , as they say, and the philosophical/character/agenda issues in play for those who opine range from smarmy thieves who will be happy to blacken a pen, glue fractured barrel back together, plate the trim and cheerfully offer said pen as "pristine, better than mint", to those apparent purists (puritans?... who still have their own agenda) who pontificate that even the fellow who just wants to blacken his worn out but ultra-flex Waterman 52 should be arrested for fraud and crimes against the hobby (though meanwhile is worried that all his oodles of black pens will devalue if everyone starts making their own weaker examples nice, shiny and black). And, of course there is huge room for honest philosophical difference (aside from evil personal agandas) based on one's views of collectables in general, whether one tilts towards coin collecting (don't sneeze on the coin) or towards automobile restoration/collecting (fix everything, plate everything, darken everything, etc).

Just as one guy recently wrote more or less "Golly, Waterman sterling 452's are hot now. I saw one sell at a flea market for $20 six months ago, yet one just sold at Gary Lehrer's site for $400, what an increase!), when really ni that case the confounding variables (condition, venue-to-venue variability) dwarf any apparent temporal/market increase in value, so too with certain button-pushing issues in pendom are context and philosophy more key than simple "yes/no", "good/evil" views.

While I might defer a bit to some of our art-history types regarding global views of art/artifact preservation and views of archival (including "reversible") restoration, there can be no doubt that those issues map a bit onto pen blackening.

There can be no doubt that since original black-preserved 100 year old hard rubber pens are well more scarce than oxidized/faded examples and given that not everyone discloses reblackening (though often the experts can note it), there is a concern for fraud, though promulgators probably argue it isn't fraud if one accepts blackening as just routine restoration, akin to resacing, though most of us can see why this isn't so.

There are enough issues in play that it is easy for those who like to dissect arguments to poke holes in most hard stances on this issue.

LIkely the area of greatest agreement on acceptance of blackening is for pens such as you outline, relatively humble/low-cachet variants in quite worn condition which one wants just to look nice for personal use A real trasher Waterman 52 with chasing nearly gone and imprint faded, with popping black color, will relatively obviously be a re-black, even if not so described by owner. Newbies still can be taken, but the pen won't gain much value even if the blackening is not recognized. Still, in 200 years maybe those would have been museum pieces, all that is left of the hobby. Or... maybe not.

But, what of "museum pieces". Pens fewer than 10 known and impressive appearing at baseline? What significance to darkening rubber in a manner that perhaps 10% of the hobby population can recognize? What if the blackening rubs off when new owner does light polish? Is this good? Good for hobby? I have... doubts.

So, just a our hobby doesn't necessarily have a "market" price for old pens (venue having huge impact on price), so too reblackening is a mixed picture, with proponents/opponents living on a bell curve or spectrum of belief from "Always, who cares" to "never, even for a burnt out user grade pen"

Here is link to a recent FPB thread on a nice Sheaffer that pulled $750 on ebay despite (or enhanced by?) original fading of rubber. The pen with light polish likely would glow (regarding metal). I would not touch the rubber on this one. A vintage overlay with clean metal and original oliving? Indication that it hasn't been much messed with, which to me is more valuable than a great deal of tampered crap I see at pen shows.

http://fountainpenbo...ls-750-on-ebay/

Every time this topic pops up, opinions are... emphatic

Thoughts?

regards

d

[Roger W.]

Perhaps it is time to ask what sort of repairs to a pen are acceptable and which ones aren't.

I'm neither a dealer, a long-time collector, or a collector with deep pockets allowing me to purchase many expensive pens. I do enjoy finding good examples of the few brands that I've focused on, and I'll generally buy even a down-and-out pen if it fills a niche in my collection. When such a pen is dirty and scratched, I clean it, use various abrasives to clear up the scratches, and polish it back to a nice shine. I've carefully polished years of grime off of nibs to make them gleam like new. And yes, I've reblackened BHR pens that were truly ugly in their coats of blotchy olive brown. Not only that, but I've used Loctite 408 to glue a long crack in a BHR cap. It isn't perfect, but that crack won't grow longer.

I also like for my pens to work, although I don't carry fragile ones around with me regularly. I've replaced ink sacs, vac-fil seals, snorkel seals and such, and I've had bent nibs restored to working order by Mike Matsuyama and retipped by Greg Minuskin. I bought a pen with no nib and found a presumably authentic replacement to fit it. I've even swapped a good, unbrassed pocket clip from one Conklin crescent filler (a true parts pen) to replace the brassed clip on another pen (the clips were identical to my eye).

Some of my repairs are probably obvious; others aren't. But, all of them do something to the integrity of the pen as it arrived at 2012. These pens were dirty, scratched, corroded, bent, and missing key parts when I got them, and now they are clean, shiny, polished, straight, have all their parts attached, and actually write.

I have some pens that, because of my efforts, work properly and look nicer than they did when I acquired them. My budget is such that if I can get a structurally sound example for a few dollars and do the work to make it look good and work well, then I don't have to break the bank to pay hundreds for a pristine example (which may, after all, have had some work done to it as well).

So, where do we draw the line? Y'all tell me.

John Hubbard

John;

It's a fair question. Obviously all seals and sacs were meant to be maintained so those repairs are normal and usual. Repairing parts with vintage parts is good to the extent it is done very carefully which it often isn't because dealers don't always know what the right part was. A clip is likely going to be the same but a serial numbered nib (or any nib if you don't have a broke original to go on) could be years out of whack. You do the best you can I suppose and I don't ever see there being any rules. With experience and knowing people in the hobby you figure out who is putting out virtual fake pens. I honestly wonder when we are going to hit a point where there are more Parker black giants than what Parker ever produced as I hear of turned caps and don't doubt that re-engraved barrels would be possible - making a pen was never rocket science. Oh well, most Sheaffer's aren't worth faking - least not yet.

Roger W.

[Roger W.]

There's a whole ethical issue here which I won't repeat at length as it has been done to death in the past and it does tend to bore. Sufficient to say that the main reason for re-blacking is to pass off a sow's ear as a silk purse. In actuality, it greatly reduces the value of pens.

I think you're going a tad overboard by claiming that blackening a pen is the equivalent of deception. While you're not using those words, that's clearly what you meant. It depends on the seller and comments that are made. As I noted before, there's a lot of true fraud going on in our hobby under the terms "restoration". Heck, there are actually people out there that can cut off crazed celluloid and restore it to look like original and advertise those services. Then there are folks that replate clips and trim. What constitutes restoration and what constitutes deception?

Hi John

You will note that I didn't say the "only" reason. I said the "main" reason. That leaves me quite safely on board, I think. I am perfectly prepared to accept that there are other reasons, such as the person who re-blacks a common pen as a daily user. That, of course may lead to problems of its own, in the passage of time as collections are sold, perhaps by those who inherit them and don't know what's original and what's re-blacked. Leaving that aside, though, the majority of re-blacked pens that have come my way have been blacked by sellers in hope of an increased price. Never, in my experience, is there an admission that the pen has been re-blacked. When it's undeclared, that seems to me to be an attempt to pass the pen off as something it is not. I always return re-blacked pens.

There's no need to go re-blacking pens for resale. I'll pay good money for BHR and BCHR that hasn't been messed around with, in the certainty that I have a good market for it. From my point of view, re-blacking mostly fails to convince and it's a source of distrust in the BHR market.

Deb;

I couldn't agree more! As I've said though, I think we have to accept it as the norm. I also wonder how many reblacked pens you may have bought thinking that they were natural? I know some BCHR I've bought is reblacked but, I bet there are a few more that have been enhanced that I just can't tell. Afterall, there are worn pens that are naturally black so if it is worn and black that is not an indication that it has been reblacked - I think some BCHR was made better than other BCHR.

Roger W.

[John Danza]

Hi John,

I think you're going a tad overboard by claiming that blackening a pen is the equivalent of deception. While you're not using those words, that's clearly what you meant. It depends on the seller and comments that are made. As I noted before, there's a lot of true fraud going on in our hobby under the terms "restoration". Heck, there are actually people out there that can cut off crazed celluloid and restore it to look like original and advertise those services. Then there are folks that replate clips and trim. What constitutes restoration and what constitutes deception?

Regarding the highlighted sentence... i don't agree.

We certainly can discuss what elements or context, if any, about the blackening of old pens constitutes deception, but I don't see anything "overboard" in the suggestion that it is that. Anyone who has reblackened a pen and sold it without full disclosure can be reasonably considered to have committed deception. Clearly this occurs... so there we are.

regards

d

Yes David, anyone who's sold it without full disclosure can be reasonably considered to have committed deception. But that wasn't the comment I was responding to. Re-read the comment. It clearly insinuates that anyone that reblackens a pen is intent on committing deception. That clearly isn't the case nor can it be substantiated.

[John Danza]

There's a whole ethical issue here which I won't repeat at length as it has been done to death in the past and it does tend to bore. Sufficient to say that the main reason for re-blacking is to pass off a sow's ear as a silk purse. In actuality, it greatly reduces the value of pens.

I think you're going a tad overboard by claiming that blackening a pen is the equivalent of deception. While you're not using those words, that's clearly what you meant. It depends on the seller and comments that are made. As I noted before, there's a lot of true fraud going on in our hobby under the terms "restoration". Heck, there are actually people out there that can cut off crazed celluloid and restore it to look like original and advertise those services. Then there are folks that replate clips and trim. What constitutes restoration and what constitutes deception?

Hi John

You will note that I didn't say the "only" reason. I said the "main" reason. That leaves me quite safely on board, I think.

I'm not sure how you're finding a difference there Deb. You're making a statement that 100% of the people that reblacken pens are doing so with the intention of committing deception. That dog won't hunt.

[david i]

Yes David, anyone who's sold it without full disclosure can be reasonably considered to have committed deception. But that wasn't the comment I was responding to. Re-read the comment. It clearly insinuates that anyone that reblackens a pen is intent on committing deception. That clearly isn't the case nor can it be substantiated.

Nah. She did not cite "anyone" (as in "everyone"). She cited a "main reason", and with goal of making a pen *look* better (with or without *being* better), as in sow's ear to silk purse.

I don't see absolutes in play, and even if "main reason" is debatable, this still isn't a 100% thing.

regards

d