Jump to content

Parker 95 date code


maxS

Recommended Posts

Hello all.

 

There is a Parker 95, Made in England.

The cap has a date code TE, corresponding to the 1st quarter 1985. But as we know, Parker 95 was introduced in 1988.

How can it be possible? Misprint?

 

http://i046.radikal.ru/0911/2f/401d0f4fd23f.jpg

Edited by maxS

D'Antheses never miss.

 

Parker. Стрелы и перья

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • davidkmp

    3

  • maxS

    1

  • Eccles

    1

  • ballpointpen

    1

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

That's interesting! I have a 'PL' coded P95 flighter = Q3 1987; one year early is a credible variation given the need to produce stock ready to distribute, but 3's a bit of a challenge.

Of course, it's no answer to your question.

Glenn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Parker 95 range (I only collect ballpoints but I guess fountain pens would be the same)was introduced in 1988 and ran until 1994

 

I hope the table I have included below helps Parker collectors decypher the letters on their pen caps.

 

Beginning in 1970 Parker in France and the UK began marking some of their pens on the trim or cap bands to allow for dating. Using the words "QUALITY PEN", one letter per year, followed by a quarter marker, allowing for dating within a ten year span. Parker used this system more and more and it was introduced in the US in 1979. The quarter marker changed in 1987 from ECLI to III, II, I or none (last quarter) according to the table below.

In 2000 the code again underwent a small change when the quarter switched sides with the year and there was a dot between them "Q.III"

Year Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

---------------------------------

1970 QE QC QL QI

1971 UE UC UL UI

1972 AE AC AL AI

1973 LE LC LL LI

1974 IE IC IL II

1975 TE TC TL TI

1976 YE YC YL YI

1977 PE PC PL PI

1978 EE EC EL EI

1979 NE NC NL NI Date coding begins in the US

1980 QE QC QL QI

1981 UE UC UL UI

1982 AE AC AL AI

1983 LE LC LL LI

1984 IE IC IL II

1985 TE TC TL TI

1986 YE YC YL YI

(change)

1987 IIIP IIP IP P

1988 IIIE IIE IE E

1989 IIIN IIN IN N

1990 IIIQ IIQ IQ Q

1991 IIIU IIU IU U

1992 IIIA IIA IA A

1993 IIIL IIL IL L

1994 IIII III II I

1995 IIIT IIT IT T

1996 IIIY IIY IY Y

1997 IIIP IIP IP P

1998 IIIE IIE IE E

1999 IIIN IIN IN N

(change)

2000 Q.III Q.II Q.I Q

2001 U.III U.II U.I U

2002 A.III A.II A.I A

2003 L.III L.II L.I L

2004 I.III I.II I.I I

2005 T.III T.II T.I T

2006 Y.III Y.II Y.I Y

2007 P.III P.II P.I P

2008 E.III E.II E.I E

2009 N.III N.II N.I N

 

Note, to add some confusion IE could denote Q1 in 1974 or 1984, or Q3 in 1988 or 1998

 

www.ballpointpen.co.uk

Edited by ballpointpen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The Dot on date codes after 2000 is not consistent - I have quite a few colored jotters that are marked for example P111, T11 and not a Dot to be seen. Perhaps Parker dosen't care about the low end jotter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 years later...

I have recently found exactly the same Parker 95 with the date stamp TE. Unless there was a batch of english parkers produced with incorrect stamps perhaps we need to revise the first year of production to 1985?1F736FDF-5B26-45A1-B784-85C51116F155.jpeg4BC41ADF-D78C-4C0A-97C3-F1B6968BE5E0.jpegC8BABF8C-5C24-4A2B-99EE-29A07861BB88.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have recently found exactly the same Parker 95 with the date stamp TE. Unless there was a batch of english parkers produced with incorrect stamps perhaps we need to revise the first year of production to 1985?

It may be just the angle but that pen looks more like an Arrow than a 95 to me. If that is so then the date code would be correct.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Most Contributions

    1. amberleadavis
      amberleadavis
      43972
    2. PAKMAN
      PAKMAN
      35347
    3. inkstainedruth
      inkstainedruth
      30427
    4. Ghost Plane
      Ghost Plane
      28220
    5. Bo Bo Olson
      Bo Bo Olson
      27744
  • Upcoming Events

  • Blog Comments

    • inkstainedruth
      Thanks for the info (I only used B&W film and learned to process that).   Boy -- the stuff I learn here!  Just continually astounded at the depth and breadth of knowledge in this community! Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth 
    • Ceilidh
    • Ceilidh
      >Well, I knew people who were photography majors in college, and I'm pretty sure that at least some of them were doing photos in color,<   I'm sure they were, and my answer assumes that. It just wasn't likely to have been Kodachrome.  It would have been the films I referred to as "other color films." (Kodachrome is not a generic term for color film. It is a specific film that produces transparencies, or slides, by a process not used for any other film. There are other color trans
    • inkstainedruth
      @Ceilidh -- Well, I knew people who were photography majors in college, and I'm pretty sure that at least some of them were doing photos in color, not just B&W like I learned to process.  Whether they were doing the processing of the film themselves in one of the darkrooms, or sending their stuff out to be processed commercially?  That I don't actually know, but had always assumed that they were processing their own film. Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth   ETA: And of course
    • jmccarty3
      Kodachrome 25 was the most accurate film for clinical photography and was used by dermatologists everywhere. I got magnificent results with a Nikon F2 and a MicroNikkor 60 mm lens, using a manually calibrated small flash on a bracket. I wish there were a filter called "Kodachrome 25 color balance" on my iPhone camera.
  • Chatbox

    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More
  • Files






×
×
  • Create New...