Capless Copy

[Bruno Taut]

Some days ago "Parse Error" started a thread in which he expressed his desire to find a cheap copy of the Pilot Capless.

 

This one could be considered a copy, but is not cheap at the moment:

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_aQ69G8Wh9To/TH0R36rPB9I/AAAAAAAAAoQ/HxSnY9P-4yQ/s1600/IMG_2392-red.jpg

Platinum Knock 18, from 1965.

 

Follow ups to that daring statement dealt with the morality of counterfeited goods. Now, I wanted to add some more information.

 

This is one of the first Pilot patents about the Capless pen. It dates from 1964 (published in 1966):

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aQ69G8Wh9To/TH_bzVplVHI/AAAAAAAAAqA/pEVKREk1qYI/s1600/US-patent-1964.jpg

 

This one is a patent of a very similar idea, but from 1944 (published in 1946):

 

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_aQ69G8Wh9To/TH_czSH1lYI/AAAAAAAAAqI/pp4WhNIlqc0/s1600/Capless-1946-patent.jpg

Which copies do we accept as legitimate and which ones are not legitimate?

 

For reasons nobody explained, that original thread was locked.

 

Cheers,

 

Iosepus

Edited September 2, 2010 by Iosepus

[Silvermink]

I think the "bad" copies are the ones that are made with the intent of deceiving people into thinking they're the original product, e.g., using the original manufacturer's logos.

[AltecGreen]

I agree with Silvermink's definition. Pilot was not the first to introduce a capless pen with a mechanism to extend and retract the nib with a closing door. The Pullman Meteore and Aurora Asterope precede the Pilot capless by three decades.

[alfredop]

There is also this my old post showing a chinese capless imitation.

 

Ciao

Alfredo