Comparison Of Real Vs. Fake Montblanc [Pic Heavy]

[ecox]

A while back I discovered that my MB 149 was transparent to infrared light. You could use infrared light to see through the pen. Someone on this board was curious if a fake MB would be, too, so he sent me a fake Chopin to have a look at. I thought it would be a good opportunity to examine the fake thoroughly.

 

My real 149 (top) and the fake Chopin (bottom).

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09744.jpg

 

The fake looks ok, and from a distance, such as across a boardroom table, it probably could fool most people. The 149, made of MB’s “precious resin,” feels ever so slightly slippery; the fake lacks that tactile sensation. Still, unless you have a real MB on hand to compare a fake with, odds are you wouldn’t be able to tell by touch that the fake’s a fake.

 

The fake even has “Pix” engraved under the clip, which some claim that fakes do not have:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09713b.jpg

 

Taking the caps off by unscrewing the rough and gritty threads (another clue – real MB caps unscrew smoothly), the fake still looks pretty convincing from a distance. Sure, the trim ring below the threads is a little thick, but you’d have to be a total MB nerd to notice:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09745.jpg

 

The nib, too, looks ok from a distance (although when you write with it, you hopefully would notice that it’s stiff as a nail and offers no feedback whatsoever):

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09732.jpg

 

Only when you look closer does the fake start to fall apart. The nib is gold plated steel. Here you can see some where some plating has flaked off:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09708.jpg

 

And if you look at the underside of the nib, it’s raw steel. Not even plated. Compare that to my 149, which is a solid gold nib – the underside is gold:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09735.jpg

 

The clip ring has a serial number, but it’s not engraved on the level. And remember, the trim is supposed to be plated in platinum; I’ve never seen platinum look this crappy:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09737.jpg

 

If you hold a real MB up to a strong light source, it will show through a little crimson. Think of a real MB as made of a material that is akin to the world's darkest sunglasses. It's long been said that one easy way to tell a fake from the real thing is to hold it up to a light because fake ones don't have a crimson glow.

 

I can state that, at least as applied to this particular fake, that assumption is not true.

 

The fake actually showed much more red when held up to a light than the real MB. My camera's white balance got thrown off, so the real MB looks slightly blue in this picture. It's not. In reality, it was a deep red, close to the color of blood. The fake was close in color, but much brighter, likely a combination of the caps being made of different material and the fake Chopin’s cap being thinner. Note how the real one has much less show-through at the open end of the cap. The "precious resin" seems to be double thick there, which is where the threads are. The fake Chopin lacks that detail:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09734.jpg

 

To sum up so far: there are some “tells” as to the Chopin being a fake: the underside of the nib is a big tell, and the trim work’s sloppiness is another. Looking for “Pix” under the clip, or checking for a red glow, are not reliable ways to deem a Montblanc real or fake.

 

But I started this post by mentioning infrared light. A real MB is transparent to infrared light. Can we use infrared light to help identify fakes from the real thing? Yes and no. Let me explain:

 

The fake Chopin is transparent to infrared light pretty much to the same extent as the real 149 is. The fake is a tiny bit less clear, which I suppose is down to it being made of a different mix of plastics than the real MB's "precious resin." Check out the caps. The fake (the smaller one) is slightly tinted, while the real deal is transparent to infrared:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09726.jpg

 

Lighting, technique, or a host of other factors could impact how the infrared image came out, so I'm not comfortable proclaiming that one way to tell a fake from a real MB is by the transparency of the pen under infrared. Some of the fake Chopin is as transparent as the real 149. Look at the non-nib end of the fake Chopin. See how it's clearer than the body of the pen? It's almost as clear (maybe just a tiny bit cloudy) as the real 149:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09722.jpg

 

But remember I said that the answer to infrared as a verification tool was both yes and no? The reason the answer was no is because fakes can be made to be transparent to infrared light to a degree essentially indistinguishable from the real thing. But using infrared as a sort of pen X-ray, seeing into the pen in a way that you couldn’t otherwise – even if the pen was disassembled – is a valuable tool to help determine whether the pen is real.

 

The 149 (top) has a gooey sealant where the nib is set into the body. It shows that care was taken in assembling the pen. The fake Chopin (bottom) lacks the gooey sealant.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09723.jpg

 

Again, up close the real 149 (notice the micro cracks where the threads meet the ink chamber. Those are normal and common):

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09725.jpg

 

And the fake Chopin. Notice the stress fractures inside pen where the nib and feed appear to have been roughly pushed into place. I would not expect to see this on a real MB:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09724.jpg

 

Infrared examination does not work on all pens. Here’s my humble collection, plus the fake Chopin (second from top);

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09730.jpg

 

In infrared, the Stealth Namiki Vanishing Point, made of brass and plastic, is not transparent to infrared. The Pelikan M400 White Totroise’s body is somewhat transparent to infrared, but its white plastic is not.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09731.jpg

 

To conclude, infrared is a very useful tool to look inside the pen to see how carefully it was put together. The fake I examined evinced a lack of care in assembly. This is not to say that a better fake couldn’t be put together more carefully, though.

 

Next up, I did something even nerdier than looking at the pens in infrared. MB’s “precious resin” is a trade secret, I assume. So the fake will not be made of exactly the same blend of plastics. They should, therefore, have different resonant frequencies. I tested the cap of each.

 

In theory, and all else being equal, the bigger cap should make a deeper sound when hit compared to the smaller cap. Think of drums: bigger usually equals deeper. Oddly enough, the real (and larger) 149 cap had a higher resonant frequency than the fake (smaller) Chopin cap: 1530hz vs. 1088hz.

 

In general, the higher the resonant frequency the stronger something is, but the more likely it is to shatter when it fails. Put the other way, the lower the resonant frequency, the less strong it is, but the less likely it is to totally shatter when it fails. How to explain this result? My best guess is that the real cap, made of "precious resin," has some sort of glass fiber in it, making it strong but more brittle. The fake cap is probably just some sort of deep red plastic without the glass in it.

 

Unrelated to whether the Chopin was a fake, the gent who sent it to me for testing also sent me some scratch remover. I dutifully tested it by scratching the surface with a knife:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09741.jpg

 

I put some fine abrasive goop on and rubbed with a bit of cotton:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09742.jpg

 

And after about a minute, the scratch was pretty much all gone:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/ecox/DSC09743.jpg

 

That's pretty neat!

 

Let's sum up:

 

• 
   
  
• From a distance, a Montblanc fake might impress someone. But up close, or by handling or using it, the lack of quality is easier to identify.
   
  
• The red glow is not dispositive. This fake had it. Others could, too.
   
  
• "Pix" engraved under the clip is not dispositive. This fake had it. Others could, too.
   
  
• Whether the pen is transparent to infrared light is not a reliable method by which to determine a MB's genuineness. This fake was about as transparent as a real Montblanc.
   
  
• Infrared is a wonderful tool to X-ray the Montblanc to see how the innards are put together. On this fake, the infrared revealed numerous cracks and a lack of sealant where the nib and feed apparently were roughly forced into the body.
   
  
• Real Montblanc "precious resin" may make a higher frequency sound than a fake made of a different sort of plastic.
  

If I were going to buy another Montblanc, I'd either buy from someone I trust or buy from a Montblanc boutique. It's simply too difficult and time-consuming to try to verify a suspect Montblanc as genuine or not.

 

I hope this was helpful and enjoyable.

 

-Erik

[hari317]

Hi Erik, thanks for re-posting. very useful and Excellent study.

[dennis_f]

Thanks for taking the time to run through all this Erik. Incredibly informative!

D.

[Brian C]

Makes me want a Montblanc demonstrator.

[pb2au]

Very interesting post.

[elysee]

GREAT JOB! This was very informative and very interesting! Thank you very much!! : )

[SamCapote]

Fascination details. Thanks for all the time you took and comparison shots. Excellent thread.

[rockspyder]

Wow! Fascinating! I use infrared imaging a lot, but have never thought to examine my pens like this...now I will explore it for sure. Thanks!

[meghan]

This is fascinating. Thanks so much for posting! I feel fairly certain that I could identify a fake based on these characteristics but I'd be really interested to see one in person and comparing it to a genuine article to see if I could actually spot the impostor.

[penmanila]

very helpful, many thanks!

[Delphideo]

I'm not into Montblancs, but wow! That was really comprehensive. If I ever see another Montblanc, I'll be sure to use your information since I have had two fakes given to me as gifts.

[megapenfreak]

Unreal thanks for that

[georges zaslavsky]

very good observation

[ethernautrix]

Whoa. I wonder if I would have been able to tell the Chopin was fake. Probably by the nib, but... the red glow? Someone went to a lot of trouble to make a convincing fake (as opposed to the junky fakes that are easy to spot).

[meiers]

What an amazing presentation! Thank you. I learned something today.

That "Chopin" is a fountain pen made in hell. What an absolute nightmare!

 

Matt

Edited June 7, 2011 by meiers

[kandarp]

Very helpful! Thanks.

[SheilaM]

Wow, thats amazing. Thanks for a fascinating read, and all the effort that went into making it so!

[jotterius]

Is it possible to recognise a fake mont blanc from the writing experience. Is the fake one scratchy?

[fmp]

I read http://www.pixiq.com/article/create-your-own-ir-filter and use a portion of unexposed developed slide and 60sec of expose for this real 145 with regular camera, sorry for the blur. Note the sleeve for feed and nib and the thread of the bulkhead joining the section and barrel.

[xiphogonium]

Hi there,

 

very interesting! However the most obvious problem with the "Chopin" appears to be its sheer size. On your image it appears to be longer than or at least have the same length as the "cigar", as many here use to call the 149.

I own both models and the Chopin is considerably smaller than the 149.

 

Michael

Edited June 12, 2011 by xiphogonium