An Enthusiast’s Collection – Part 2

[pavoni]

Hi Daynix, thank you for posting your transitional pen.

 

I would imagine some would see your pen as a non-typical MB 136 transitional or indeed an 'official' frankenpen, where the (MB 136) transitional cap was available at the time. However, a MB 136 transitional it is because I am certainly not qualified to disagree with your MB expert's view (particularly HIS )

Incidentally, here is a 'frankenpen' of mine. Not good enough to be called part of my 'collection' but certainly good enough to keep and use.

For those reading this that have not come across such curious looking pens, we know that these ‘transitional’ pens came about when Montblanc sought to introduce new model shapes and production methods and so, for the early MB piston-fillers we typically see transitional pens from around 1935, when models changed from a 1930s-style shape to the 1940s model. We see it again with Daynix’s pen above, from around 1947, when models changed from a 1940s-style to a 1950s model. In short, here we are talking about an outgoing MB 136 pen influenced by the incoming MB 146. Such pens are therefore very important markers for us in tracking Montblanc’s development of its fountain pens and as such for me, it is important to have these ‘transitional’ models represented in my collection.

Note that in 1937, Montblanc first launched its newly revamped Meisterstuck line with the introduction of the MB 136 and 134. These mid-sized pens were also the first to be introduced when MB launched the Meisterstuck 14# series in 1949, with the MB 146 and 144 and as such, this is why we see transitional pens from the 13# series come in the form of the MB 136 and 134.

 

The typical form is of a celluloid pen with a ‘modern’ short ink window, 14C two-tone nib, three cap bands, together with a prismatic clip.

 

Here we see a typical MB 136 transitional

The MB 136 transitional alongside the pen it is influenced by, the MB 146

 

And a close up of the cap bands. Note that the cap band on the MB 146 reads 'Masterpiece' (translation of Meisterstuck) which was typical used for those MBs intended for export to English speaking markets.

One can also come across such pens with a long ink window, older clips (such as the fluted clip) and almost any variation of ink feed.

Here we have such a pen, a MB 134 transitional

There are around four types of cap band configuration of either:

1. Thin gold band, thick flat gold band without markings, thin gold band (as in the MB 134 above) or
2. Thin gold band, thick gold band with ‘Meisterstuck’ engraved, thin gold band (as in the MB 136 above); or
3. Milled band (as in wartime version), thick gold band with ‘Meisterstuck’ engraved, milled band; or
4. A single thick flat gold band without markings (an unattractive look).

Where ‘Meisterstuck’ is not engraved on the thick middle cap band, it should be found imprinted on the cap top (this one is showing its age on my MB 134 )

 

Pavoni

Edited May 26, 2013 by pavoni

[jar]

  On 5/26/2013 at 3:10 AM, pavoni said:

For those reading this that have not come across such curious looking pens, we know that these ‘transitional’ pens came about when Montblanc sought to introduce new model shapes and production methods and so, for the early MB piston-fillers we typically see transitional pens from around 1935, when models changed from a 1930s-style shape to the 1940s model.

Pavoni

 

We can see this conservative trait continuing with MB for a long time. For example when MB introduced the Wing Nib and slip cap pens they also introduced the 264 with screw cap and open nib. When they introduced the cigar shape they continued the 234½.

[johnkim424]

Pavoni,

 

In you collection I see two models of pen I am not familiar with. Can you tell me the difference between K132 and 132 and K232 and 232. What does "K" indicate? Any other MBs with K designation other than one you mention in your collection? Thanks

[pavoni]

Thank you for the question johnkim.

 

With reference to the 'K', this stands for 'Kurz', which means 'short'. In truth, there isn't much difference between a MB 132 and a MB K132. On mine (pictures are above within the original post), the K132 looks shorter than the 132, with its cap on. Without, they are exactly the same pen. Confusingly, my K232 is taller than my 232G though this may have something to do with the 232 being an older model (1936)?? However, my Pix 72 is a good deal taller than my K72G ('G' = smooth finish or finished to a high gloss) and, as you can see from the pictures below, my 1950s Pix 172 is taller than the 172K.

 

The 'K' prefix (later used as a suffix) was therefore used to indicate a short format version of the particular model, or damen format, women's format (suited for). Here we see it used on a MB Pix K72G, K232 and K132

 

And again on these 1950s Pix 172 (earlier models listed as 172L) 172K, 272 and 272K

 

 

To see where the pens/pencils with the 'K' prefix/suffix fall within the product range, I have listed my vintage MBs below. I have also taken the liberty of listing my modern MBs should anyone looking to get into vintage want a size comparison with a modern pen

 

(1950s MBs):

1. MB 149, (M nib)
2. MB 146, (M nib)
3. MB 144, (OB nib)
4. MB 142, (OBB nib)
5. MB Pix 172, (pencil 1.18mm), standard version
6. MB Pix 172 Demonstrator (cut out), 1950s (pencil 1.18mm)
7. MB Pix 172K, (pencil 1.18mm), short version
8. MB 246G, (B nib)
9. MB 244, (M nib)
10. MB 242G, (OBB nib)
11. MB 242 Demonstrator (clear barrel) (M nib)
12. MB Pix 272, (pencil 1.18mm), standard version
13. MB Pix 272K, (pencil 1.18mm), short version
14. MB 344, (OBB nib), early version
15. MB 344G, (OF nib), late version
16. MB 3-42, (M nib), early version
17. MB 342G, (M nib), late version
18. MB Pix 372, (pencil 1.18mm)

(1940s MBs):

1. MB L139, long window (BB (M) steel nib, 250) celluloid body & cap, ebonite section & knob.
2. MB L139, short window (F-M nib, 250) celluloid body, ebonite cap.
3. MB 138, (OB nib)
4. MB 136, (B (M) nib), standard version
5. MB 136, (steel nib) wartime version, no ID marks
6. MB 136, (F nib), transitional version
7. MB 134, (BB Steel nib), standard version
8. MB 134, (F nib) wartime version
9. MB 134, (OM nib) transitional version
10. MB 132, (OBB nib), standard version
11. MB K132, (OBB nib) short version
12. MB Pix L71, (pencil 1.18mm)
13. MB Pix L72, (pencil 1.18mm)
14. MB 236, (OBB No 6 nib), standard version
15. MB 236, (OM No 6 steel nib), wartime version
16. MB 235, (O italic No 5 nib)
17. MB 234, (F No 4 nib )
18. MB 234-1/2, (B Palladium nib), long cap, standard version
19. MB 234-1/2, (M No 4 ½ Steel nib) wartime version
20. MB 234-1/2G, (F nib), luxury version
21. MB 232G, (EF nib), standard version
22. MB 232, (EF No 2 Steel nib), wartime version
23. MB K232, (KEF No 2 Steel nib) short version
24. MB 232, (F No 2 nib) short version (from Max & see Rosler p101, item 6)
25. MB Pix 72, (pencil 1.18)
26. MB Pix K72G, (pencil 1.18)
27. MB 334, (OM Warranted b nib), standard version
28. MB 334-1/2, (F No 4 ½ nib), standard version
29. MB 334-1/2, (M No 4 ½ nib Steel nib), wartime version
30. MB 333-1/2, (M No 3 ½ nib), standard version
31. MB 333-1/2, (BB nib) wartime version
32. MB 332, (OB No 2 Steel nib), standard version
33. MB 332, (M flex No 2 Steel nib), wartime version
34. MB 432, large red dot version
35. MB 432, small red dot version
36. MB 432, small red dot wartime version
37. MB Pix 82, (pencil 1.50) early version
38. MB Pix 82, (pencil 1.50) later version
39. MB Pix 92, (pencil 1.18), early version
40. MB Pix 92, (pencil 1.18), late version

(modern MBs):

1. MB 149, (OF bespoke personalised nib)
2. MB 147, (M nib)
3. MB 146, (M nib)
4. MB 145 Homage de Chopin, (M nib)
5. MB 114 Mozart, (M nib)
6. MB 116 Mozart Ballpoint
7. MB 117 Mozart Pencil
8. MB 163 Rollerball
9. MB 165 Pencil (0.7mm)
10. MB 166 Highlighter
11. MB WE Thomas Mann (M nib)

Edited May 27, 2013 by pavoni

[georges zaslavsky]

  On 5/26/2013 at 3:10 AM, pavoni said:

Hi Daynix, thank you for posting your transitional pen.

 

I would imagine some would see your pen as a non-typical MB 136 transitional or indeed an 'official' frankenpen, where the (MB 136) transitional cap was available at the time. However, a MB 136 transitional it is because I am certainly not qualified to disagree with your MB expert's view (particularly HIS )

Incidentally, here is a 'frankenpen' of mine. Not good enough to be called part of my 'collection' but certainly good enough to keep and use.

For those reading this that have not come across such curious looking pens, we know that these ‘transitional’ pens came about when Montblanc sought to introduce new model shapes and production methods and so, for the early MB piston-fillers we typically see transitional pens from around 1935, when models changed from a 1930s-style shape to the 1940s model. We see it again with Daynix’s pen above, from around 1947, when models changed from a 1940s-style to a 1950s model. In short, here we are talking about an outgoing MB 136 pen influenced by the incoming MB 146. Such pens are therefore very important markers for us in tracking Montblanc’s development of its fountain pens and as such for me, it is important to have these ‘transitional’ models represented in my collection.

Note that in 1937, Montblanc first launched its newly revamped Meisterstuck line with the introduction of the MB 136 and 134. These mid-sized pens were also the first to be introduced when MB launched the Meisterstuck 14# series in 1949, with the MB 146 and 144 and as such, this is why we see transitional pens from the 13# series come in the form of the MB 136 and 134.

 

The typical form is of a celluloid pen with a ‘modern’ short ink window, 14C two-tone nib, three cap bands, together with a prismatic clip.

 

Here we see a typical MB 136 transitional

The MB 136 transitional alongside the pen it is influenced by, the MB 146

 

And a close up of the cap bands. Note that the cap band on the MB 146 reads 'Masterpiece' (translation of Meisterstuck) which was typical used for those MBs intended for export to English speaking markets.

One can also come across such pens with a long ink window, older clips (such as the fluted clip) and almost any variation of ink feed.

Here we have such a pen, a MB 134 transitional

There are around four types of cap band configuration of either:

1. Thin gold band, thick flat gold band without markings, thin gold band (as in the MB 134 above) or
3. Thin gold band, thick gold band with ‘Meisterstuck’ engraved, thin gold band (as in the MB 136 above); or
5. Milled band (as in wartime version), thick gold band with ‘Meisterstuck’ engraved, milled band; or
7. A single thick flat gold band without markings (an unattractive look).

Where ‘Meisterstuck’ is not engraved on the thick middle cap band, it should be found imprinted on the cap top (this one is showing its age on my MB 134 )

 

Pavoni

You have so many nice MBs Congrats and thanks for sharing

[specialk0449]

Pavoni you have magnificient collection! You have done a brilliant job of photographing and describing the history of both pen companies. As many others have said this post should be pinned. I share your love of the vintage Montblanc pens. Many thanks for taking your valuable time to create such a valuable resource for all of us to share.

 

This is a thread that I will come back to read over and over because I will learn something new each time. This post along with your pictures should be published in one of the major pen magazines. Thank you again for posting your collection.

[tenurepro]

More questions Pavoni!

regarding the 234 1/2; i've seen older versions with two engraved 'bands' on the piston-end of the pen, one the blind cap and on on the piston section - separating the two bands is a D.P.R. #### engraving.

on new version, there is only one engraved band with no D.P.R. engraving... you posted a good picture of this a while back here

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/uploads/imgs/fpn_1356468334__dscn0349_zps7cd24cfe.jpg

 

The question is, when did this change (2 bands + D.P.R. -> 1 band) take place, and why? (change in filling mechanism?)

 

Thanks!

[Kalessin]

This topic thread has been pinned to the top of the Montblanc forum. A few "please pin this topic" messages have been trimmed out, as this has now been done.

[pavoni]

  On 5/30/2013 at 2:38 AM, tenurepro said:

More questions Pavoni!

regarding the 234 1/2; i've seen older versions with two engraved 'bands' on the piston-end of the pen, one the blind cap and on on the piston section - separating the two bands is a D.P.R. #### engraving.

on new version, there is only one engraved band with no D.P.R. engraving... you posted a good picture of this a while back here

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/uploads/imgs/fpn_1356468334__dscn0349_zps7cd24cfe.jpg

 

The question is, when did this change (2 bands + D.P.R. -> 1 band) take place, and why? (change in filling mechanism?)

 

Thanks!

 

First and foremost, thank you to Georges and to Specialk0449 for their very kind comments. I am very appreciative of anyone taking the time to pass comment, regardless.

 

Essentially, we are talking about the piston arrangement at the back-end of the pen, and in particular the back-end of the 23# series pens. When looking at any of the 13# series (L139, 138, 136, 134, 132), you will always see (working up the pen) a piston-filler knob followed by a piston knob. I think some people refer to these parts as ‘cone’ as in ‘filler-cone’. Thanks to Tom Westerich, we have access to an Italian1950s MB repair catalogue, within which (p 14) we see the parts labeled interestingly as ‘Meccanismo completo’ and ‘Meccanismo’.

 

The link tenurepro was kind enough to direct the reader to in his question, was of my four 234½ pens, two of which were early editions, and two of which were the ‘Luxury' versions, showing that the two early pens had a different looking piston arrangement to the later luxury models. For the sake of convenience, I am going to use new photos.

 

In this first picture, we are looking at a Meisterstuck MB 134 long window (1937-1943), its piston system (closed), an early MB 234½ (1936-1942), its piston (closed), and a MB 234½ Luxury version (1952-1954).

 

We can see from the above photo that the MB 134 has both a piston-filler knob (with 134 imprinted) and the piston knob (the imprinted D.R.P number not visible in this photo). We can see this more clearly from its piston system and that the piston-filler knob remains fixed as part of the whole mechanism (hence the italian naming of the part - ‘meccanismo completo!’), which is in contrast to the blind cap arrangement on the MB 234½ pictured above it. Looking at the 234½ piston system, you can see that I have inadvertently mangled the piston knob, in an attempt to get it off. Told you I wasn’t technical It is in fact firmly fixed onto the piston housing, simply acting as part of the screw-in part that helps to screw the piston system into the barrel, as can be more clearly seen on the 134’s piston.

 

By contrast to the arrangement on the other two pens, the MB 234½G Luxury version, at the top of the picture, only has a blind cap, underneath which is the actual piston-filler knob. It does not have a piston knob, just a blind cap and the barrel.

So, why did the piston arrangement change on the 234 ½? I asked the legendary Max Schrage

Max says that the piston is the same on the two 2^nd tier pens, only the ‘mechanism’ is different (Max is referring to the piston knob). It seems that it was costly to produce this double knob system for the 1^st tier pens, let alone for the second tier. So whilst Montblanc started with a piston system they thought they could use across their 1^st and 2^nd tier piston fillers, they ultimately acknowledged the cost and changed to the cheaper version on the 2^nd tier pens.

Thought you might be interested in seeing the dismantled piston used in the 234½. I have essentially pulled the piston out of its piston housing for you to see the single phase when compared to the Meisterstuck's two phase

 

As to ‘when’ this change happened; of my other 2^nd tier MB pens, I only have the same situation with the MB 232 pens, not with any of the others in the 23# series. The 33# series never had a piston knob and the MB 332 never had a blind cap. So we are left dealing with the MB 232 and 234½. (unless anyone can produce another 23# series pen without a piston knob?)

 

My copy of a 1939 MB catalogue depicts a K232 complete with its piston knob. Therefore, as production for the MB 232 is supposed to have stopped in 1940 and stopped in 1942 for the K232, what with the 234½ Luxury version introduced in 1952, I respectfully submit that Montblanc moved to a cheaper piston arrangement from 1942 and that is why one can find two of the same pen with different piston arrangements

 

Pavoni

 

 

Edited May 31, 2013 by pavoni

[tenurepro]

Thanks Pavoni for the detailed response. So just to summarize,

piston knob = 2 stage mechanism, no piston knob = 1 stage mechanism.

 

I have two regular (= none luxury) 234 1/2; one has a danish clip, 2 gold rings, 14c nib, and a piston knob, the other doesn't have a danish clip, has 2 gold rings, 14c nib, and no piston knob. The gold suggest that both pens were not made in the wartime. I wonder if my one stage 234 1/2 was made in the '50's when around the time they started producing the lux version. (sometimes i wish montblanc had a date code like Parkers... would make the history a bit easier to reconstruct)

[pavoni]

Meisterstuck Piston-fillers

 

I have decided to add an additional and final episode to this thread, comparing the Meisterstuck models of the MB 13# series, 1950s MB 14# series, and modern MB 14# series. This comparison ought to enable those FPNers new to or considering vintage MB pens, to be able to compare model sizes across the generations

 

Please note that there are two excellent articles pinned to this forum, which deal with the various changes made over time, to the two most popular Meisterstuck pens: the iconic MB 149 and very popular MB 146. I refer of course to Barry Gabay’s superb article covering the MB 149 over a 50-year period, and Michael R’s highly impressive review of the MB 146, from the 1940s through to the 1970s. Both articles are essential reading.

 

This final episode looks at the three forms the Montblanc’s ‘Meisterstuck’ line has undertaken: from the 13# series, first seen in 1937, to the first generation 14# series, introduced in 1949, through to that which we recognise today as being the classical MB Meisterstuck form.

 

Below are a few photos comparing the three stages, through which the modern Meisterstuck piston-filler has emerged. In this regard, we are looking at a Meisterstuck line up, including the L139, 136, 134 and 132 only, as these models were represented by an equivalent model in the 14# series. Therefore, the MB 138 and the various wartime and transitional models from the 13# series are not represented here, neither is the MB 147 Traveller. However, by necessity, the MB 145 Chopin and the MB 114 Mozart are included.

 

MB L139, 1950s MB 149, modern MB 149 - comparisons

We look first and foremost at the standard bearer of the Meisterstuck range, the MB L139 (1939-1952), first generation MB 149 (1952-1960), and the modern MB 149 (mine is from 2010). However, to appreciate the sheer scale of change, one has to consider that the MB L139 was advertised as the world’s largest piston-filler when first introduced. In 1952 Montblanc replaced their super pen with a pen of equal magnificence and in wonderful celluloid- the MB 149 - which retained such features as: the twin silver cap rings, MB’s patented telescopic piston-filler system, and imprints of the model number and nib type on the piston-filler knob. However, gone forever was prefix 'L' to signify luxury model, also gone was that flat top cap, with its cylindrical cap body, the iconic tie clip, and the double knob arrangement for the piston system, of piston-filler knob and piston knob. Modern materials and production methods together with competitive and consumer pressures, shaped the MB 149 into the pen we know and admire today.

MB L139, 1950s MB 149 and modern (2010) MB 149

MB L139, 1950s MB 149 and modern (2010) MB 149 uncapped.

MB L139, 1950s MB 149 and modern (2010) MB 149 nibs. Note the difference in the sections.

The Stars!

 

MB L139, 1950s MB 149 and modern (2010) MB 149 cap bands. Not sure what it is about those twin silver-rings but.........

Heat stamped piston-filler knobs. Ah, the good ol' days when one could at least tell the nib size!

The unmistakable MB L139

The fabulously elegant MB 149 (1950s)

 

 

My modern MB 149

 

With personalised nib (shhh )

 

Pavoni

Edited June 2, 2013 by pavoni

[pavoni]

MB 136, 1950s MB 146, modern MB 146 - comparisons

 

Here we see comparisons of the very popular-sized MB 136 (1937-1949) and 146 (1949-1960) and the modern (1985) MB 146.

 

MB 136, 1950s MB 146 and modern MB 146

 

MB 136, 1950s MB 146 and modern MB 146 uncapped

 

MB 136, 1950s MB 146 and modern MB 146 and their beautiful nibs.

 

MB 136

 

1950s MB 146

 

1985 MB 146

 

Pavoni

[Soot]

Pavoni Pavoni,

 

You pulled out the guns on this one! An excellent post on the comparison of the 139/149; the subtitle for the modern 149 is just plain hilarious, can't stop laughing. The unmistakeable; fabulously elegant; and lastly, "modern". It's exactly what it is, no character other than just modern.

 

Btw, did you get a three-tine personalized nib, or a normal two tine one?

[pavoni]

MB 134, 1950s MB 144, modern MB 145 - comparisons

 

Here we see comparisons of the popular-sized MB 134 (1937-1949) and 144 (1949-1960) and the nearest modern version I have, a MB 145 Chopin (1998). My preference for the MB 145 over the modern MB 144 is due to the 144's slip-on cap and gold ring at the bottom of the grip section, which I am not found of. Also, the MB 145 is supposedly a slightly thicker pen.

 

MB 134, 1950s MB 144 and modern MB 145

 

MB 134, 1950s MB 144 and modern MB 145 uncapped

 

MB 134, 1950s MB 144 and modern MB 145 nibs

 

MB 134

 

1950s MB 144

 

MB 145 Chopin

 

Pavoni

[pavoni]

MB 132, 1950s MB 142, modern MB 114 - comparisons

 

Here we see comparisons of the smallest-sized Meisterstuck, the MB 132 (1938-1940) and 142 (1950-1960) and the nearest modern version available, a MB 114 Mozart (1996).

 

MB 132, 1950s MB 142, MB 114 Mozart

 

MB 132, 1950s MB 142, MB 114 Mozart uncapped

 

MB 132, 1950s MB 142, MB 114 Mozart nibs

 

MB 132

 

1950s MB 142

 

MB 114 Mozart

 

MB L139, 136, 134, 132, 1950s MB 149, 146, 144, 142, modern MB 149, 146, 145, 114

 

Not sure there is much more I can add to this thread, other than answer any questions as best I can. Enjoy

 

Pavoni.

Edited June 2, 2013 by pavoni

[pavoni]

  On 6/2/2013 at 9:37 PM, Soot said:

Pavoni Pavoni,

 

You pulled out the guns on this one! An excellent post on the comparison of the 139/149; the subtitle for the modern 149 is just plain hilarious, can't stop laughing. The unmistakeable; fabulously elegant; and lastly, "modern". It's exactly what it is, no character other than just modern.

 

Btw, did you get a three-tine personalized nib, or a normal two tine one?

 

Hi Soot,

 

Ha, ha. Well spotted. For that subtitle I originally put just.... 'Modern MB 149'. It was only after deciding to include the picture of my personalised nib, that I turned it into 'My modern MB 149'. Don't get me wrong, the modern MB 149 is a fine pen but (big 'but') in my humble opinion, there is absolutely no comparison; none what so ever, with the two true masterpieces that came before it.

 

As for the personalised nib, I would love to have had a three-tine nib like Rocksypder's, but I've had to make do

 

Pavoni.

[Soot]

Pavoni,

 

Could I make one special request from you? If you don't mind, could you do a comparison of the 138 along with 139/136? I would be sincerely grateful to you.

 

I am somewhat lost behind the reasoning for the 138. Was it supposed to be an "economic" model of the 139, or a bigger nib size 136? The earlier version had a #8 nib, while the later ones had a #6, was it a difference of nib length or also girth?

 

From your photos I can tell it's about the same length as the 139, but slimmer in width. When uncapped, which of the model did 138 compare to?

 

Sorry if I asked too many questions...

 

-- Bob

[pavoni]

Hi Bob,

 

Please find pictures below of my MB 138 (size 8 nib, flat feed, long ink window) compared to the MB L139 and 136 as requested.

MB L139, 138, 136

MB L139, 138, 136 uncapped

MB L139, 138, 136 nibs. Now, that looks like a size 8 nib on the MB 138 to me.

 

The curious and highly collectable MB 138

The MB 138 is indeed a curious pen. Whilst I had initially thought it to be the case, after consideration, I now believe that any notion of a Meisterstuck pen being in any way an "economic" alternative for another Meisterstuck, would be contradictory to the idea of 'Meisterstuck' and all that the line stood for. This is surely the point of offering a second and indeed third-tier series of pen. Rather, I favour the idea that the MB 138, bigger in girth than the MB 136 but not as generous as the MB L139, offered the consumer the chance to purchase a bigger nib than that on a MB 136. Perhaps the most reliable source of information supplementing our catalogues, is Rosler.

 

Upon re-launching the Meisterstuck range through its 13# series piston-fillers, MB obviously chose not to reinvent the wheel when it came to numbering the models within the series (other than qualifying what the three digits meant), and simply followed the same sequence of model numbers as used in their successful Meisterstuck push-button filling 12# series. I have concentrated solely on piston-fillers, so don’t really know that much about these other MB pens but surely we can afford a little speculation in order to get to the answer on the reason for a MB 138 .

 

Rosler tells us that the 12# series, introduced in 1935, initially consisted of models: MB 128, 126, 124, and 122 (with loads of colour and ‘S’, ‘G’, PL’, ‘P’, ‘E’, and ‘K’ variants) at launch. The equivalent to our pen in question was obviously the MB 128, then the biggest pen of the series of which there was an ‘S’, ‘G’, and ‘PL’ version. However, a bigger, luxury model - the MB L129 - was introduced two years later in 1937 (I believe you have one of these Bob! ) . By 1938 MB ceased production on the entire line.

 

In 1939, with the MB 136 and 134 already well established (1937), Montblanc introduced both the MB 138 and the MB L139. If we jump forward to the 1950s 14# series, and also to the modern 14# series, whilst the MB 142 was dropped in the modern form, the MB 149, 146 and to some extent the MB 144

were relatively constant. Whilst we are aware of MB 138s being sold into 1950, the ‘official’ view is that it was only in production for one year (1939-1940) and, we know that the MB 138 did not survive into the 14# series.

Whilst we don’t have the luxury of production figures for the individual models available to us, I would have thought it reasonable to assume that the MB 138 simply no longer did it for Montblanc, either in sales or production.

 

Makes for an interesting pen to collect doesn’t it!

Pavoni

Edited June 4, 2013 by pavoni

[Soot]

Hi Pavoni,

 

Thanks for the detailed comparison and the explanation. It helped in many ways; it is an insight for those that doesn't have the 138 who wonders what's it all about. And no, I don't have the 129, that was one of the pens I wasn't able to get.

 

Maybe one day...

 

 

--- Bob

Edited June 4, 2013 by Soot

[MXFPfan]

Excellent piece, Pavoni. As a fountain pen aficionado, I found your article insightful and masterfully written. It is true that writers are forged in the use of the fountain pen, indeed. Congrats!