Dating Montblanc 149s

[Daniel1223]

deleted

Edited February 24, 2021 by Daniel1223
other

[Barry Gabay]

 

 On 2/19/2021 at 12:18 PM, Barry Gabay said:

Split ebonite feed for 149 appeared in 1981 in Europe and North America.

How can one be so sure?

If so, how come that I got a pen with this feed seven years before it “apeared”? It was purchased in Vienna.

 

Hello stoen,

If you are the original owner of this fountain pen and purchased it new, I can not explain its having components from very different generations. Many of us have purchased used fountain pens with replacement parts from different eras.There are also transitional 149s from several eras. I am familiar with those from 1983-84 and 1990-91 possessing components from the end of one era and the beginning of the next.  If you purchased this pen new in Vienna "seven years" prior to the introduction of the split-ebonite feed ca. 1981, it is certainly an anomaly. Furthermore, the presence of a split-ebonite feed "seven years before" 1981 is contrary to the Montblanc advertising, internal documents, and retailers documents I have seen over the years, including documents sent to me from Montblanc HQ in Hamburg.  With all due respect for you and your beautiful 149, I stand behind my assertion of 1981 for the split-ebonite feed's appearance on the 149.  

Please send me a private message or email. I am genuinely interested in the complete background you can share about your 149. 

Best wishes, Barry

[Barry Gabay]

Dear stoen,   

Having re-read all of your posts, I believe your 149 truly is an anomaly. Purchased in 1974, it simply should not have had the split-ebonite feed. However, you bought it new, and that is the feed which was on it.

I sincerely beg your pardon and apologize for my excessive confidence in dating the split-ebonite feed.  Yours is the first I have ever heard of from such an early date. 

Please forgive me if my above post was offensive to you or anyone else reading it.

Best wishes,

Barry

[niksch]

2 hours ago, Barry Gabay said:

Dear stoen,   

Having re-read all of your posts, I believe your 149 truly is an anomaly. Purchased in 1974, it simply should not have had the split-ebonite feed. However, you bought it new, and that is the feed which was on it.

I sincerely beg your pardon and apologize for my excessive confidence in dating the split-ebonite feed.  Yours is the first I have ever heard of from such an early date. 

Please forgive me if my above post was offensive to you or anyone else reading it.

Best wishes,

Barry

I think this is an unnecessary apology Mr Gabay, particularly if this pen is in fact an anomaly as you state.  You responded based upon years of study and knowledge.  I find nothing in your response to be offensive.  You must have had some back channel communication with this poster.    

[stoen]

4 hours ago, niksch said:

I think this is an unnecessary apology Mr Gabay, particularly if this pen is in fact an anomaly as you state.  You responded based upon years of study and knowledge.  I find nothing in your response to be offensive.  You must have had some back channel communication with this poster. 

I also think this is an unnecessary apology Mr Gabay, but thank you, nevertheless. I am “this poster” and I have had no back channel communication. Was there a reason for having had one?

 

Nobody’s message here is offensive to me. Thanks very much for your concern. I also truly hope my messages are not offensive to anybody.

 

 I wish my pen could fit the existing timeline theory, but it is puzzling to me why it doesn’t as much as to anybody here. All the intention behind any of my posts is in humbly trying to contribute in making your knowledge base more complete and helpful. Privately, I can live fine with such an intriguing “anomaly”.

 

Unfortunately, I don’t have the original receipt. 46 years ago, I was just a high school kid who earned some money and have never thought this pen’s receipt might have proven useful in making a research case study decades later.

 

Thanks, and all the best!🙂

 

[Barry Gabay]

Thank you,  stoen.  You are a gentleman.  I appreciate your reply.  All of us try to contribute to an understanding this great model 149. Your pen and its date of purchase provide valuable information in dating certain components of the model. I appreciate your knowledge and details about your fountain pen.

All the best,

Barry

[Bo Bo Olson]

18C nib....pens sold in France or Switzerland had to be 750/18C/K to be called gold.

 

In at my auction house, a two lots of pens came up, including W.Germany Pelikans. 3W. Germany  800's, two in the the other lot.

This lot I won.

And a '93 Hunter Toledo, I have to guess in that all 7 pens had 18 C/K nibs, one could order a 18C/K nib including a 3rd generation Noblises.

 

The wood colored one is a Diplomat, the two smaller black ones are a W.Germany 800 and a Waterman, Mann200.

So I guess the original owner died in @94. In there were no more dateable Pelikans. He had 3 separate black and gold W.Germany 800's OF, OM and OB. I ended up with the OM.

So would think the 149's 18 C nib came from @'88-93

 

 I had to burnish the 149 nib tip with the dull end of a drill bit (having no fountain pen nib burnishing tools) , the nib, had fallen before I got it, with a slight wave at the tip of one tine, that refused normal alignment. (Ages ago I burnished a 90 degree bend in a Parker Vac factory stub BB, with a drill bit. Worked in both cases. Placed the nib on part of a paper notebook, so the paper supported the tines and the desk the feed.)

 

Luckily I had practice with a 1005 and a 800, so the 149 is not quite Honking Huge as when I tried one a decade ago with out experience with Large pens.

This is the first day, and the jury is still out. Not as awkward as expected.

Looks to be a F...Herbin Lie de Thee shades on good paper with it.

[bunnspecial]

On 2/20/2021 at 2:30 PM, stoen said:

How can one be so sure?

If so, how come that I got a pen with this feed seven years before it “apeared”? It was purchased in Vienna.

🙂

Time-warp machines and wormholes are cool, but I don’t remember having seen any of them close to my pen.

🙂

All the best!

 

I know I'm late on this, but did you possibly have your pen serviced along the way?

At least now, I'm under the impression that virtually every pen sent for service leaves with a plastic feed fitted/set to the original nib(assuming it's salvageable) regardless of what type it comes in with.

 

Could a service trip in the 1980s have resulted in it being swapped for the then current split ebonite?

[Plukky]

Hi,

 

I thought I'd add my 149 to the thread:

14C two tone nib

Split ebonite feed

Clip ring says only "Germany"

Cap ring has "Montblanc - Meisterstuck No 149 -" with the umlaut dots within the U and the "o" in No is superscript with a line under it

One piece barrel (please could someone confirm?)

Plastic threads on piston

Using the chart, this leads me to 1975-1985, or 1984-1985 if I'm wrong about the single piece barrel.

 

Can anyone confirm my conclusions?

Also, does the feed look like it needs pushing a little further into the section?

 

Regards

Pl.

 

 

[stoen]

On 5/1/2021 at 9:16 PM, bunnspecial said:

At least now, I'm under the impression that virtually every pen sent for service leaves with a plastic feed fitted/set to the original nib(assuming it's salvageable) regardless of what type it comes in with. 

 

Could a service trip in the 1980s have resulted in it being swapped for the then current split ebonite?

Thanks for your concern @bunnspecial. Well, the early 70s 149 seems to have been an exceptionally well made pen. Although I’ve never treated my pen roughly, I still wonder how.

🙂

I neither went with it on “service trips” nor sent it for “factory repairs”.

I only have three points to comment on:

1. I have exceptionally good visual memory and event memory, as well as some decent fountain pen repair and maintenence skills.
2. There would be no problem for me buying a single-piece historic 149 feed in the aftermarket, replace & set it, so there would be no “conflict” with the “theory”.
3. The fact that I don’t feel like doing so is because I both never thought of selling it, as well as firmly believed that having such a pen could somehow contribute to understanding the model history and manufacturing practice development.

 

I’ll refrain from commenting on the deduction you’ve presented. I only hope someone would find my humble comments worth reading.

🙂

 

 

[Bo Bo Olson]

...Didn't know to look at the clip band.....mine says W. Germany. So I have to go back up the thread to find out when that dating was.

 

Oooh.....31 pages to gander.

Found elsewhere.

18K, 2 tone, broad shoulders (1991-1994)...

except for a period in the 1980s to about 1991 when they were marked W-GERMANY.

 

Which is about when I'd thought....very late '80's early '90's. In all the other 7 pens in that plastic bag lot date from @ '90. All with 18 K/C what ever nibs.

 

So my '93 Hunter Toledo may have been the last pen the original owner bought.

 

All the pens sat in the dark of the drawer from that time until the widow died with in the last year.

 

[Barry Gabay]

Hello plukky & stoen,

 

Plukky, I purchased new 149s with the same components as yours in NYC, Amsterdam's Schipol Airport Duty-Free Shop, and in Andorra la Vella in 1981-82. Then in 1983-84, in the US at least, 149s had all of your components except for the new two-piece barrel. Yes, your barrel is one-piece.

 

You asked about how the feed is set. If the pen writes well, I would not be concerned about the orientation of the feed. On most 149s I have seen with your feed, the horizontal groove in the feed's shank is visible just below the cap lip. Yours may be set slightly high, but if the nib is properly set and there is no danger of the nib's tip touching the inner cap top, I would leave it as is. 

 

Concerning dates: they may be immaterial because of the unusual 149 stoen purchased in Vienna in the mid-1970s. Its split-ebonite feed predates the general appearance of that feed on 149s.

 

Stoen, I enjoy your contributions here. Hope you and your loved ones are all well.  Your 149 continues to generate conversation among those of us genuinely interested in studying this great model. I agree that you should not switch feeds. Your 149 is, in my experience, a one-of-a-kind which you have used and cherished for more than 40 years. It is perfect exactly as it was the day you bought it. 

 

Enjoy your weekend.  Be well, everyone. Get vaccinated. 

 

Best wishes, 

Barry

[bunnspecial]

12 hours ago, stoen said:

Thanks for your concern @bunnspecial. Well, the early 70s 149 seems to have been an exceptionally well made pen. Although I’ve never treated my pen roughly, I still wonder how.

🙂

I neither went with it on “service trips” nor sent it for “factory repairs”.

I only have three points to comment on:

1. I have exceptionally good visual memory and event memory, as well as some decent fountain pen repair and maintenence skills.
2. There would be no problem for me buying a single-piece historic 149 feed in the aftermarket, replace & set it, so there would be no “conflict” with the “theory”.
3. The fact that I don’t feel like doing so is because I both never thought of selling it, as well as firmly believed that having such a pen could somehow contribute to understanding the model history and manufacturing practice development.

 

I’ll refrain from commenting on the deduction you’ve presented. I only hope someone would find my humble comments worth reading.

🙂

 

 

 

I apologize if you found my comments insulting, which your post seems to imply you did.

 

I was not questioning the care you take of your pens or your recollection, but merely offering one possible explanation as to how it could have ended up with such a part.

 

None the less, it sounds like it has indeed been an excellent pen for you and will no doubt continue to treat you well for many years to come. It is certainly quite an interesting anomoly with excellent provenance to support its originality. Perhaps others will surface in the future and allow for additional data points.

 

Again, continue to enjoy and thank you for sharing your pen with us.

[Plukky]

21 hours ago, Barry Gabay said:

Hello plukky & stoen,

 

Plukky, I purchased new 149s with the same components as yours in NYC, Amsterdam's Schipol Airport Duty-Free Shop, and in Andorra la Vella in 1981-82. Then in 1983-84, in the US at least, 149s had all of your components except for the new two-piece barrel. Yes, your barrel is one-piece.

 

You asked about how the feed is set. If the pen writes well, I would not be concerned about the orientation of the feed. On most 149s I have seen with your feed, the horizontal groove in the feed's shank is visible just below the cap lip. Yours may be set slightly high, but if the nib is properly set and there is no danger of the nib's tip touching the inner cap top, I would leave it as is. 

 

Concerning dates: they may be immaterial because of the unusual 149 stoen purchased in Vienna in the mid-1970s. Its split-ebonite feed predates the general appearance of that feed on 149s.

 

Stoen, I enjoy your contributions here. Hope you and your loved ones are all well.  Your 149 continues to generate conversation among those of us genuinely interested in studying this great model. I agree that you should not switch feeds. Your 149 is, in my experience, a one-of-a-kind which you have used and cherished for more than 40 years. It is perfect exactly as it was the day you bought it. 

 

Enjoy your weekend.  Be well, everyone. Get vaccinated. 

 

Best wishes, 

Barry

Hi Barry,

Many thanks for your reply, confirmation and advice.
Being an inveterate meddler, I have already completely disassembled and reassembled the pen so the nib is now reset. 
I have two Montblancs, this pen and a slightly later 146. Visually, I would say the 149 is a fine nib and the 146 a medium, but they put down a very similar line, the 149 having more feedback. 
I await my vaccine and am trying to remain patient,

Regards

Pl.

[bwDraco]

I have both a 146 and a 149, and both bear new stamps on the nib. Instead of being stamped 14K or 18K for the gold content, they now say Au585 or Au750. The StØD hallmark also doesn't have an oval around it. Also, the 149 has "Pix®" on the cap band, something that AIUI was previously removed. Both pens were purchased new from Montblanc Boutiques; the 149 was acquired in August 2020, while I got the 146 last month (May 2021).

 

I'm getting the impression these changes occurred around 2018, but I can't put my finger on exactly when this happened. Any idea when Montblanc switched to the new stamps?

 

Draco

[AcLondon]

Quick question on dating 1950s 149.  I have one that has the ski-slope feed and everything seems correct for a 1952-1955.  One unusual feature is that its nib-size marking is F-.  I know the exploration of the meaning of dashes, arrows, ks has been well-rehearsed elsewhere.  To ask simply, though: is it fair to say these unusual markings signify an earlier part of the 1952-1955 range?  Or am I trying to be too precise?  Thanks, AC

[pen tom]

I was wondering when the MB 149 had "GERMANY" and "MADE IN GERMANY" stamped on the clip ring.

I looked at one 149 dating chart that I found but it did'nt seem to match other identifying items on the pens, in other

words, my pens seemed to be older that what the chart said.

So I'm wondering if the caps were replaced at some point or else the chart is not entirely correct.

[Montblanc19]

I will ask a friend Do you know the difference between the pen and the 149? Notice which part is pronounced? In addition to the size of a cigar, then Is there any visible part that says 149?

[CS388]

I think that's a 146?

 

Is there any to have the latest version of the chart pinned to the top of (eg) the last page?

I always have to trawl back through pages of posts, to find it.

(Not that that is a problem - very enjoyable, in fact)

 

I did download it, once - but, it's somewhere amongst a million files on my desktop.

Ah well, it may encourage me to up my digital house-keeping routines.

 

Enjoy.

[niksch]

On 12/28/2021 at 4:27 PM, CS388 said:

I think that's a 146?

 

Yes.