Parker Sonnet Finishes And Datecodes

[mitto]

Was wondering if Sonnets pens could be datecoded as IIQ and IIIL as it is generally believed that the Sonnet line was introduced in 1994. I have just purchased today Sonnet flighter pens both CT and GT. The flighter CT is datecoded as IIQ (second quarte 1990) while the flighter GT as IIIL (first quarter 1993). The pattern on the nibs is also different from the one shown for the earlier Sonnet models/finishes on www.parkerpens.net. Again the cap band shown on www.parkerpens.net for the earlier (1994) Sonnet models is the norrow one while it is the broad one on my pens. The pens are NOSs , boxed and with paperwork. The quality of engraving on the pens , the clip design , the threads on the section and the cap jewels all look near perfect. Are the pens some kind of design refresh or shall one assume that these models actually existed but were not shown on www.parkerpens.net? Here are some pictures. Sorry for the low quality night time snaps.

Edited February 4, 2015 by mitto

[icardoth]

Have a look here. It may help.

[mitto]

Have a look here. It may help.

No . Both the models ( flighter GT and CT) with wide cap band are listed as No.41 and No.42 of 2004 but with different nib pattern. Also the flighter GT and CT are listed as No.25 and No.26 of 1994 but with narrow cap band. Edited February 4, 2015 by mitto

[Matlock]

No . Both the models ( flighter GT and CT) with wide cap band are listed as No.41 and No.42 of 2004 but with different nib pattern. Also the flighter GT and CT are listed as No.25 and No.26 of 1994 but with narrow cap band.

 

The Parker logo shown on your pens wasn't used until 2008 so they must be fakes. Sorry.

[Florida Blue]

The pens are to my eye authentic and were produced in the 2nd quarter of 2010 and the 3rd quarter of of 2013 respectively. They are Sonnet Refresh pens (2007-Present).

[mitto]

The pens are to my eye authentic and were produced in the 2nd quarter of 2010 and the 3rd quarter of of 2013 respectively. They are Sonnet Refresh pens (2007-Present).

May be. But if refreshed in 2010 and 2013 shouldn't the datecodes be Q.II and L.III instead of IIQ and IIIL? Or may be you are right on this count too because that change in datecoding style must have taken place for the previous decade (2000-2009) and from 2010 the datecoding had to be reversed to the earlier one in wogue in 90s. One thing is quite sure that the QC is at par with that of the high end genuine Siver Lustre Sonnet that I own. I am , however , waiting for some more opinions and suggestions by fellow FPNers before I proceed to return the pens to the local stationery store wherefom I bought them.

Edited February 5, 2015 by mitto

[Florida Blue]

May be. But if refreshed in 2010 and 2013 shouldnt the datecodes be Q.II and L.III instead of IIQ and IIIL?

 

The 2010 to present date codes on the linked website are incorrect. Parker date codes change every 10 years and spell out "QUALITY PEN." In 2010, Parker started the date codes over again with the letter last and the lines first. I bought a Sonnet new in 2011 with a date code of IQ for 3rd quarter of 2010.

[mitto]

The 2010 to present date codes on the linked website are incorrect. Parker date codes change every 10 years and spell out "QUALITY PEN." In 2010, Parker started the date codes over again with the letter last and the lines first. I bought a Sonnet new in 2011 with a date code of IQ for 3rd quarter of 2010.

Yes , I was thinking on the same lines and have edited my post accordingly but not before you quote it.

[mitto]

The Parker logo shown on your pens wasn't used until 2008 so they must be fakes. Sorry.

Matlock , hadn't you jumped to a conclusion too fast? Please read the posts submitted after yours? If you still believe the pens are fakes I will be returning them to the shopowner today or tomorrow.

[Matlock]

Matlock , hadn't you jumped to a conclusion too fast? Please read the posts submitted after yours? If you still believe the pens are fakes I will be returning them to the shopowner today or tomorrow.

 

No. As others have said, the date codes are wrong for the latest design.

[mitto]

No. As others have said, the date codes are wrong for the latest design.

How? IIQ (second quarter 2010) , IIIL (first quarter 2013). How are they wrong for the latest design? Please educate me. Edited February 5, 2015 by mitto

[Matlock]

How? IIQ (second quarter 2010) IIIL ( first quarter 2013). How are they wrong for the latest design? Plsase educate me.

No. Second quarter 2010 is Q.II and first quarter 2013 is L.III.

[mitto]

Matlock , remember you said my Sonnet Silver Lustre (P.I) was of third quarter 2007. Now after 2009 wuldn't the datecoding be reversed to lines first and the letter last? Or do you want to say that the datecoding for examples for pens produced in third quarter 2017 would still be P.I?

Edited February 5, 2015 by mitto

[mitto]

Peter , what you say means the style of datecoding remains the same for two decades/20 years and not for just one decade/ten years. Is it so???

[mitto]

If until 2009 the datecoding was 'letter first lines last' how can it remain so after 2010 for the current decade too? Do you follow me Matlock?

[Matlock]

If until 2009 the datecoding was 'letter first lines last' how can it remain so after 2010 for the current decade too? Do you follow me Matlock?

Yes Mitto, you are correct. I was going by an incorrect site. Sorry for the mix up. It looks like your pens are OK. Sorry again.

[mitto]

Yes Mitto, you are correct. I was going by an incorrect site. Sorry for the mix up. It looks like your pens are OK. Sorry again.

You are welcome Peter. Rather I feel sorry for bothering you again and again. It was not the case of my pens being fake or genuine. It was the case of educating myself and removng the confusion. I could have returned the pens easily to the shopowner. He is a known gentleman. And would have certainly done so on your advice. Thank you dear Peter.

[Matlock]

You are welcome Peter. Rather I feel sorry for bothering you again and again. It was not the case of my pens being fake or genuine. It was the case of educating myself and removng the confusion. I could have returned the pens easily to the shopowner. He is a known gentleman. And would have certainly done so on your advice. Thank you dear Peter.

You are not bothering me. It's nice to hear from you. What is annoying is that I updated the date codes for my own reference and then looked at the out of date info when I replied to you. I must be getting old (come to think of it, I am old ).

[mitto]

You are not bothering me. It's nice to hear from you. What is annoying is that I updated the date codes for my own reference and then looked at the out of date info when I replied to you. I must be getting old (come to think of it, I am old ).

Naaaa. You are not old. You are lively. I do respect you as a friend. And I too updated the date codes for my personal reference while talking to you earlier in the day.

[SockAddict]

Gentlemen,

 

Every site I can find with Google lists the original reading of the date codes. I trust that you are right -- I'd like to find the accurate information. Where are you seeing it?