Aurora 88 Serial Number And Year Estimation

[Cryptos]

Are the parts interchangeable between the 88, 88K and 88P?

[Feanaaro]

The 88P, at least the one I own, is slightly narrower than the original 88, and the nib is also subtly different, enough so that it is not interchangeable. So no, parts are not interchangeable, even the cap wouldn't fit.

I don't know about the 88k as I don't have one.

[praxim]

Between 88 and 88K I believe there were only refinements to manufacture, and a new cap and clip introduced early in the life of the 88K. Ebonite parts changed to celluloid and the feed was improved. None of that should affect compatibility.

 

The 88P is slimmer, so a cap is not transferrable between it and earlier pens nor would I expect the internals to be the same. The nib became stiffer but probably fits. The 88P uses the 88K cap style.

 

The pen in question appears to have a normal 88 cap, although in terrible condition. Further, the label includes the word Aurora in the circle, where is said to have been moved out on the 88K and 88P. A check of two 88P I have shows this to be so.

 

It is frustrating. Everything looks good for an 88 except the serial and implied year, 1957. In 65 other examples of the various models, there is nothing even a little bit out of pattern. Then there is this rogue.

 

edit: after reading Feanaaro's comment above.

Edited April 16, 2017 by praxim

[praxim]

After corresponding with the seller, I propose putting this one to bed. He kindly provided me with additional close photos of the serial number and of the engraving on the front of the pen. He suggested, and I agree, that with manual engraving sometimes someone simply made a mistake. I think I noted earlier in this thread that the engraving looks to be of poor quality compared with my several examples, so a notion that an inexperienced engraver simply erred is plausible and a more likely explanation than the 0.00003 chance (1 in 33,000) discussed as "less than 1 in 20000" above. I considered also that a youthful owner may have added a digit for the fun of it but I think the engraving style is consistent.

 

Alerted to the fact it is quite unusual, the seller is considering keeping it for his own collection. I declined the opportunity to buy for myself.

Edited April 16, 2017 by praxim

[Cryptos]

Okay, my new 88P has arrived and the serial number is: 3102741

[praxim]

It fits. Looks like late 1958 to early 1959.

[praxim]

This post updates the figures in #9 and #10, based on more data and on a slight re-estimation of early and late production rates within each cycle.

 

If your pen falls below the given serial number, it is in the given year, give or take month.

 

88

1947 88889

1948 440767

1949 785072

1950 1039789

1951 1317400

1952 1719780

1953 1916010

 

88K

1953 1917886

1954 2067505

1955 2172398

1956 2392481

1957 2556231

 

88P (believed to start at 3 million, jumping from the last 88K)

1958 3102741

1959 3198801

1960 3288165

1961 3418050

1962-63 unserialised

 

The production numbers and suggestion of production overlap in the pinned topic about Aurora history are not correct, given actual serials observed.

[Gobblecup]

I am reviving this thread out of interest I’ve had in 88s recently!

I am in the process of buying a restored 88 from Europe, it has serial number 1224705. So that would place its production in mid to late 1950 if I am understanding the chart correctly?

I am asking the seller to take an additional picture of the button on the bottom of the pen so I can correctly identify that as well, from writing samples it appears to be a flexible broad or medium.

[praxim]

Close. The chart is read by taking the date after your serial, so in your case a bit under half way through 1951. I have an 88 only 20,000 pens later, starting 1244 instead of 1224.

 

The above tables have been refined. I keep gathering more pen numbers and clues about production start and end. This can change the balance of pens from one year to another. I can not update the above directly, so here are the current estimated cutoffs for serial numbers for 88s.

up to 134,534 - 1947

457,415 - 1948

780,297 - 1949

1,103,178 - 1950

1,426,059 - 1951

1,748,941 - 1952

1,883,474 - 1953

As I have said before, the final digits are there to show centrality of the estimate, not that a pen with a slightly higher or lower number is absolutely on that side of the year.

[Gobblecup]

  On 7/3/2018 at 10:49 PM, praxim said:

 

Close. The chart is read by taking the date after your serial, so in your case a bit under half way through 1951. I have an 88 only 20,000 pens later, starting 1244 instead of 1224.

 

The above tables have been refined. I keep gathering more pen numbers and clues about production start and end. This can change the balance of pens from one year to another. I can not update the above directly, so here are the current estimated cutoffs for serial numbers for 88s.

up to 134,534 - 1947

457,415 - 1948

780,297 - 1949

1,103,178 - 1950

1,426,059 - 1951

1,748,941 - 1952

1,883,474 - 1953

As I have said before, the final digits are there to show centrality of the estimate, not that a pen with a slightly higher or lower number is absolutely on that side of the year.

 

 

Thank you for the clarification, I really appreciate the work you have done in compiling these dates.

[jar]

Just another data point. Pulled out my 888P and tossed in a Platinum cartridge since it has not had a chance to play in ages. It is #3007323 but date uncertain. Is it possible that Aurora may have simply used sequential numbering irregardless of model during the 3000000 series?

Edited July 8, 2018 by jar

[praxim]

Thank you for that item. It is [now] the only 888P datum I have. It slides right into early 88P numbering, assuming it was made in early 1958. We know that numbering was dropped around 1961-62, so I agree it is likely that everything from 1958 until then was numbered serially regardless of model variations. To a lesser extent that happened earlier with the first 88s then the 88K series in that cap variations were only that; interchangeable caps on otherwise identical pens.

[ele]

I have a nikargenta model (a true nikargenta with the correct stamp on the back of cap) that reads 222770. Earlier someone wrote their nikargenta model had a number in the 800,000s, which using Praxim's guide would mean it was produced 1950, 3 years into the 88's run. I thought the production of these caps, due to expense, ended earlier. Does anyone have more info on their production dates?

[praxim]

Firstly, congratulations on your early 88 in Nikargenta. My earliest 88, a silver cap, dates from 1950.

 

According to this source here on FPN, Nikargenta may not have been dropped until the 88 itself was superseded by the 88K. I found nothing else suggesting an earlier disappearance. Looking around the market, chrome and other caps dominate over Nikargenta after the early years. Perhaps they raised the price in the early 1950s.

 

My own genuine Nikargenta has a serial over 1.2M, dating to 1951. However, caps were interchangeable so there is no guarantee a cap swap did not happen somewhere along the line.

[fabri00]

Yes, probably is a cap swap.

[praxim]

Do you have a source for the proposition that none were made after 1949?

[ParkerDuofold]

Hi Praxim,

 

Very cool thread...

 

88P: 3277383

 

 

Be well.

 

 

- Anthony

[praxim]

  On 12/15/2018 at 6:31 AM, ParkerDuofold said:

88P: 3277383

 

It is difficult to date later 88Ps because I have no clear idea of when they stopped serialising. However, yours should be 1959 so no problem there. This assumes serialisation ceased at the start of 1962, as a working point.

[ParkerDuofold]

  On 12/15/2018 at 8:00 AM, praxim said:

It is difficult to date later 88Ps because I have no clear idea of when they stopped serialising. However, yours should be 1959 so no problem there...

Thanks Praxim... good to know. Best of luck with this endeavor.

 

 

- Anthony

[ralfstc]

Just for data- picked up an 88P 3223894, so 59-60. It came in a brown square box with silky orangey lining (it might be useful to consider packaging as a data point if possible).

 

Cheers,

 

R.