Why doesn't Parker revive the "P51"?

[Rique]

Why would it cost any more for capital investment for a revived 51 than

say building the 100 from scratch?

Perhaps because the 100 is a cartridge converter filler? It´s much cheaper to produce a CC than to build again the machinery to make aerometrics or vacumatics...

Edited October 19, 2006 by Rique

[meanwhile]

Thanks Yoyology, but I was referring to the Parker 100, not Hero 100.

So why would it cost more for capital investment for a revived 51 than

building a whole new pen like the Parker 100 from scratch?

For one thing, Parker already has the design of the 51. They could skip

the entire R&D phase.

The cost is greater because the 51 requires a non-standard and labour heavy production line due to its non-standard nib and collector.

 

The Parker 100 *looks* like a 51 - but it isn't. It's a conventional design with a hood hiding the nib to make it look 51-ish. This means that it (and the 51SE, which uses the same arrangement) aren't real descendents of the 51, but of the cheap copies Parker's rivals put out in the 40s and 50s.

 

The advantage to Parker of the 51SE and the 100 is that they can be built relatively cheaply using the machinery it already has, while looking like the real 51.

 

The Hero 100 otoh *is* a true 51.

 

Also, realistically, the "R&D cost" for a pen like the Parker 100 is trivial - it's a tube containing standard, well-understood components, not a Space Shuttle. The only significant "research" cost for producing a new pen like this is likely to be working out how to best configure the production line - which as already said will be a minimal cost for the "new" P100 and huge for the true 51.

[HesNot]

Yep - the 100 has more in common internally, from my understanding, with the 21 and 45, than the 51 (and the same goes for the 51SE).

 

Even with the tooling, etc.. in place Richard has pointed out that there are still some internal differences between the Hero 100 and the "51" - mostly due to aspects that required hand finishing for example. That being said, it is apparent that the Hero 100 is the closest thing you can get to a modern "51" - and the reason they are so inexpensive has everything to do with centralized planned economics (and the benefit of taking over existing plants with no cash outlay nor capital investment) and little to do with what it would take a non-subsidized corporation to produce the same results, to some extent from scratch.

[kissing]

Yes, I would like to support what the others have said.

 

According to Richard Binder, the Parker 100 AND the Limited 2002 "Parker 51" both follow technology similar to the Parker 45.

 

Sure, the Parker 45 is not a bad pen, and nor is the 100 a bad writer. HOWEVER, in terms of engineering technology and level of performance, they are on completely diifferent levels.

 

I don't know the exact details on what is involved in the production of Parker "51"s, but Richard has repeated and emphasised them many times in the past in various posts in which this kind of question was raised (his description seemed pretty technical, but it sure did convince me that Parker "51"s are the peak of fountain pen technology to which no other pen can ever imagine to imitate).

 

With this in mind...perhaps it's actually a better idea for us fountain pen users that we stick to the inexpensive finds of "51"s on eBay, rather than go bankrupt by purchasing a modern remake, which would cost more than the modern Duofold ($700+) if ever created. Remember, Parker "51"s were the top of the range pens in their production days.

[wdyasq]

Gazing at a '51' and thinking, there is little reason one could not build limited production actual '51's on a small scale with modern CNC machinery.

 

I don't know it it would be too expensive once 'retailed' but I feel sure individuals might afford them. Of course, it would not say 'Parker' on it either.

 

Ron