Oldest continuously produced fountain pen models?

[langere]

So - does this mean we should ask what name has been in use the longest for a fountain pen?

 

Erick

[bunnspecial]

Reading/thinking some about the new Parker "51" has me wondering about some other evaluation criteria we could use for "continuous production."

 

I don't think there's a lot of argument that the Duofold is the oldest model name currently in use unless I'm missing one. The Duofold will be 100 years old this year. In the course of this thread, it's been beaten to death with the design changes and then stop and start in production. That one has been on my mind after getting a modern Duofold a few weeks ago, a pen I absolutely love and that's been sharing pocket time with one of my other current favorites, my OB 149.

The modern Duofold Centenial is, to me, what a 1921 "Big Red" might naturally have evolved into if the same basic shape had been kept. It's nearly the same size as the hard rubber Duofold Seniors, but of course has a modern and very ornate nib. The old Duofold nibs are not bad, but they are a simple design and the tipping shape/construction leave something to be desired. I have a celluloid Duofold that has an arrow nib(probably a factory replacement) like what I'd expect on a Vacumatic of the same age, and even if it looks "wrong" to my eyes on a Duofold it's a much better writing nib.

 

Nib aside, though, the body is everyone's favorite punching bag of "Precious Resin"-basically high quality acrylic. Most folks who spend time using pens of this material rather than making fun of it I expect have the same reaction as me. It's a lot "colder" in hand and very slippery compared to celluloid and especially hard rubber, but it makes for a very solid feeling pen that is also very durable in "normal" use(it's hard enough that it might shatter if you drop it). I like how it feels in my hands, but that could well be because I have more writing time with pens of this material than most anything else.

 

The trim is much, much more ornate with the heavy engraved cap bands and ace emblem inset into the cap. Despite all of this the barrel itself has a very "vintage" look with deep imprinting of text and designs similar to that of original hard rubber Duofolds-specifically Duofold in big block letters and the "ribbon."

 

I'm not writing this to be a review of the Duofold, though, but rather as another thought. It's cosmetically a similar pen, but more importantly I think about how Parker markets it. In 1921, the Duofold was unlike any pen anyone had ever seen before. Actually, that's probably a stretch-I have a black hard rubber "Lucky Curve" that you'd think was a Duofold(and actually fits a Duofold cap perfectly) aside from it not saying Duofold on it. In any case, though, the red hard rubber was certainly distinctive, and it was Parker's premier pen until replaced by the Vacumatic about 10 years later.

 

After all the ups and downs and turmoil with the name and design, in 1989 the Duofold came back again as Parker's top of the line, premium offering. I consider the current Parker line-up to be mostly higher end pens across the board, but the Duofold really is their best of the best. The typical new retail price reflects that they intend for it to compete with pens like the 146 and M800, and despite being different from those pens I think it's a very competitive offering(even though it's an indisputable fact in my world that there is no pen more perfect than a 146).

 

The new "51" is a different story to me. It certainly LOOKS like the old one, and shares the dimensions. The 51 was another very distinctive looking pen, and again unlike anything else around in 1941. It was Parker's signature pen, and arguably the most distinctive and identifiable product in the history of the company.

 

Appearance alone, though, does not make a pen. There was quite literally a lot going on "under the hood" of the original. The hood itself almost completely covering the nib kept it from drying out, while the collector acted as a tiny secondary ink reservoir held close to the feed. The small tubular nib is very stiff and durable. Going past there, at a time when screw caps were the norm, the tightly fitting and sealing slip cap of the 51 was a big deal both because Parker had managed to make it work well and it was considered more convenient than a screw cap.

 

I plan to get a new 51 in due time and I'm sure I will like it for its own merits, but despite the overall size and shape, it seems to me to be more along the lines of a Jotter or one of Parker's other current offerings adapted to fit in a body of that size and shape. If the size of the under-nib cutout is indication, the nib much larger and "flatter" than an original. I don't think the current version has a collector, and of course probably the most noticeable(and seemingly controversial) difference is the screw cap. I have nothing against screw caps, per se, and most of my pens are screw cap, but I tend to look at the 51 a bit differently in this regard since it is to me an important part of the pen.

 

Also, price wise, the new 51 is at the lower end of Parker's current range. It's not an inexpensive pen, but it seems to me like it compares favorably to the Lamy Studio in terms of that(including the fact that it's offered in both steel and gold).

 

I know the 51 wasn't under discussion, but I'm mentioning it just to maybe approach this question in a different way.

 

With all of that blathering, though, I still think it's hard to argue against the 149 by most of the metrics discussed

 

1. It has been in completely unbroken, continuous production since the early 1950s

2. Pens made today have the same dimensions and general design language of the first ones(black cigar shaped body, cap MB star on top, large nib with rhodium plating covering part of it)

3. All are piston fillers, although the exact piston mechanism has changed

4. It did go from celluloid to resin in the 1960s, but I'd argue that's really the only major change.

 

Most of the other changes like switches in barrel construction(1 piece to 2 piece), change in piston material and operation, switching the nib from 14K to 18K, and changing between bi-tone and tri-tone nibs don't appreciably affect the operation or overall feel of the pen.

[Hanoi]

Those vintage parkers are so nice.  I am still waiting for someone to unload a lifetime collection of English Duofolds so I don´t have to pay excessive shipping charges.

[Dankdan63]

Brining a post back from the dead- sorry.

 

When did they start producing the Hero 616? I would think it's competing with the MB 149, no?

 

dan

[Ron Z]

If  you were to ask what pen model, I'd think that the Lamy 2000 is there.  It's been in production since the 60s.

[Armo]

My wild guess would be the Hero 616.

[Number99]

In June 1961, or the 6th month of 1961, the development project of the *华孚 (Huafu) 616 began and was launched in 1965, and the company name was changed to 英雄 (HERO Gold Pen Factory) in 1966.

 

*Huafu (Gold Pen Factory.); Company name before Hero (Gold Pen Factory.)

 

Source: wapbaike.baidu.com

https://wapbaike.baidu.com/tashuo/browse/content?id=4ca32cfec8bc79053540f6d1

 

360doc.cn

https://www.360doc.cn/article/26519243_732071230.html

 

penbbs.

http://penbbs.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=50463

 

Note.

It is not primary information.

In addition to this article, there are many other articles in Chinese that make similar references. Some people claim that the Hero 616 was launched in June 1961, but most of the comments claiming that are missing an explanation, so the former is presented here.

 

I tweet... So? When was Hero 616 released? Or do you consider 华孚(Huafu) 616 as Hero 616?

🤔

 

Edited Friday at 05:13 PM by Number99

[Number99]

I am not sure what the competition rules are for this thread, or what year is the standard for the current rules.

If no conclusion can be brought as to when Hero 616 started, is there any possibility for Hero 100 (from 1962) as the next candidate?

 

From Wikipedia.

https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/英雄钢笔