Help Authenticate A Parker Centennial Duofold Please

[como]

I recently bought a used Parker Centennial Duofold in Blue Marbled pattern. Upon receiving, I noticed that it looks a bit different than my Parker Duofold Centennial Big Red in several ways. As I am no modern Parker expert, and own a few bought from trusted source, this is the first time I bought a Parker from a local auction. The notable differences of the blue marbled Parker vs. my Big Red:

 

1. The clip and cap rings on Blue Marbled are rather flat, vs. Big Red raised/rounded;

2. Imprint on Blue Marble: position is just below clip and above cap rings on the cap, rather faint. (Date code IF) Vs. Big Red imprint on black blind cap at end of barrel (date code IIIL)
Note/Edit: Date code could be an IE, very faint, hard to read.

3. The silver part of the nib, namely the “feathers” of the “arrow” on Blue Marble is more of a sort of gun metal finish, rather similar to ruthenium finish. Vs. Big Red rhodium plated, I assume.

 

 

First I thought is this a fake Parker? But the nib looks rather good, does not attach to magnet and writes like a typical Parker Centennial nib. I also looked up on the internet and found there are several versions like this sold on Peyton Street and Chatterley etc. Indeed I now have seen a raised version and a flat version of this Blue Marble finish on the internet. So my worry is a little less. But then again, it does look different in detail than my Big Red.

Are both raised and flat versions legitimate? Any additional information? I would much appreciate knowledge and opinion on this pen. Many thanks as alway.

 

Kind regards,

 

como

Edited October 23, 2020 by como

[como]

Sorry I just realized that the small sized photos look really bad. Please let me know if larger photos help. I can try to upload again. Essentially the sizes were too large.

[thx1138]

The marble looks ok but bigger photos would help.

[como]

Thank you!!

[joss]

I don't think that you have to worry.

 

The location of the imprint either on the cap above the upper cap band or on the blind cap is both correct for the Mark I modern Duofold.

 

The clip on your blue marble pen seems a bit shorter than on the red one. A slightly shorter clip is typical for the earliest Mark I Duofolds, as explained on Parkerpens.net, and the early vs late clip may also explain the subtle differences that you see in the imprinted arrow.

 

EDIT: I just saw your additional photos and the modern Duofolds that are pictured on the Parkerpens.net page actually show the same subtle differences in arrow imprint as what you show in your pictures

Edited October 23, 2020 by joss

[AL01]

I don't think fake modern Duofolds are made, but IF they do exist, I can say for certain that they won't use that blue marbled acrylic because I have only seen first generation/ early second generation modern Duofolds use that plastic.

[como]

thx1138, joss, and AL01: Thank you all so much for your answers. Now I see from parkerpens.net that the flat shorter clip model does exist and there are even photos for comparison, I feel much more confident that this pen is fine. I would hate to go back to the seller who is a nice Swiss lady, to tell her that her pen was fake. I think that she would freak out. She had told me that she had not used it for years and it was a bit dirty, and suggested that I should use a new cartridge . I don’t think that she is a pen person, so all the better that I didn’t have to deal with an unpleasant and probably confusing situation. I much appreciate your replies!

The marble looks ok but bigger photos would help.

 

I don't think that you have to worry...

 

I don't think fake modern Duofolds are made, but IF they do exist, I can say for certain that they won't use that blue marbled acrylic because I have only seen first generation/ early second generation modern Duofolds use that plastic.

[sansenri]

I don't think fake modern Duofolds are made, but IF they do exist, I can say for certain that they won't use that blue marbled acrylic because I have only seen first generation/ early second generation modern Duofolds use that plastic.

Both assertions are not exactly correct, but not a serious fault...

 

It's known that the Kaigelu 316 is quite a close replica of the Duofold Centennial and so is the Moonman M600, neither are fakes though (just very close replicas) and are sold at much cheaper price to let you know they are not pretending to be the original...

 

As for the resin it has been used in other pens, (although not fakes)

here is a Bexley made from the same Duofold resin

[como]

sansenri: I am starting to believe that you probably have at least one pen of every model ever made .

[sansenri]

sansenri: I am starting to believe that you probably have at least one pen of every model ever made .

:lol:

nope! wish I did though...

[jchch1950]

From the photos I think there is no problem with your pen,I have the same.

[como]

And if you do, you will probably wish that you didn't!

:lol:

nope! wish I did though...

 

Thank you. jchch1950. By now I have seen enough examples of this version to believe that it's correct. It actually writes very smooth and rather soft for Parker's standards. I didn't hesitate to buy it because I never thought that anyone would bother to make a fake Parker pen.

From the photos I think there is no problem with your pen,I have the same.

[AL01]

Both assertions are not exactly correct, but not a serious fault...

 

It's known that the Kaigelu 316 is quite a close replica of the Duofold Centennial and so is the Moonman M600, neither are fakes though (just very close replicas) and are sold at much cheaper price to let you know they are not pretending to be the original...

 

As for the resin it has been used in other pens, (although not fakes)

here is a Bexley made from the same Duofold resin

 

I proudly stand corrected!

 

Thank you.

 

(I'm being serious, I promise. )

[Parker51]

When the Bexley was made it was indicated that it was made from the same rod stock as the Parker Duofold. How exactly Howard obtained it I do not know, but sometimes when a Company shuts down operations as Parker and later Conway Stewart did in the UK some of their materials come available. There is actually a lot more talk about this sort of thing in the Italian pen forums and a Celluloid that can no longer be produced and is being used today by a different manufacturer.

[dojocho]

The pen with the flat parts is an Mk 1 until 1992. The one with the raised parts is the Mk 1 untill 1996. From then on, the Mk 2 was launched, this model was more streamlined.

 

kind regards,

Hugo

[como]

1 hour ago, dojocho said:

The pen with the flat parts is an Mk 1 until 1992. The one with the raised parts is the Mk 1 untill 1996. From then on, the Mk 2 was launched, this model was more streamlined.

 

kind regards,

Hugo

Thank you! Mine is from 1988 (dare code IE), the first year that this model was launched, though they unofficially already made some in 1987. I’ve had a few Parkers, and I still found new interesting things to learn. The UK arm of Parker did very well with the revival of Duofold model, I think. 

[Ed333]

On 12/8/2020 at 5:22 PM, como said:

Thank you! Mine is from 1988 (dare code IE), the first year that this model was launched, though they unofficially already made some in 1987. I’ve had a few Parkers, and I still found new interesting things to learn. The UK arm of Parker did very well with the revival of Duofold model, I think. 

Mine is a gloriously smooth and wet writer, a keeper, in regular rotation.  I prize effortless writing.  Being Black and pearl doesn;t hurt either, easy on the eyes.

[como]

52 minutes ago, Ed333 said:

Mine is a gloriously smooth and wet writer, a keeper, in regular rotation.  I prize effortless writing.  Being Black and pearl doesn;t hurt either, easy on the eyes.

Black and Pearl is very nice. I agree that modern Parker Duofold normally write wet and smooth, and makes a good daily writer. When a pen writes wet and smooth, one can tolerate better its stiffness if any 🙂.

[Paul-in-SF]

Icing on the cake, perhaps, but here is a photo from the Penography site, that shows two versions of the MkI Centennial in blue marble, with different clips, and with the flat vs. rounded bands (scroll down a bit to get to the blue marble pens, click on the photo for a larger version). They are not identified in the text as to when each version was made, but Hugo / @dochojo has taken care of that.