Which Parker Is This?

[FountainPenNovice]

Hi,

 

I've discovered this old (at least it seems old) Parker fountain pen lying around. I was wondering if anyone can identify it.

 

It says "Parker" and "Made in France" (partly etched out) at the base of the cap. It has no markings on the nib other than the Parker logo.

 

There is a slight bit of rust where the cap finial and clip join, that is only visible under magnification. Here are the photos:-

 

 

Thank you and looking forward to your replies.

[northstar]

Parker Jotter/15 Flighter

 

http://parkerpens.net/parker15.html

[FountainPenNovice]

Parker Jotter/15 Flighter

 

http://parkerpens.net/parker15.html

Thank you North Star. That's the pen.

[northstar]

You are most welcome

[Mike 59]

Hi, Just to add, if of interest, you can find out which year your Jotter was made by reading the code next to the word 'France'.

You would look for a capital letter, and usually one or or more 'I' characters. e.g. IQ , IIIU or similar.

My photo shows a Jotter made in France in the last quarter of 2011.

[mitto]

It is a bit tricky. U would be a date code for 4Q, 1991 and 4Q, 2001 also. In fact all the 4th Quarter date codes such as Q U A L I T Y P E N would be common for all the three corresponding years (90s, 2000s and 2010s).

 

Regards.

[FountainPenNovice]

My pen has no letter written down there. Anyone know why?

[FountainPenNovice]

I think its maybe rubbed off or illegible - even with a loupe.

[Mike 59]

My Jotter was bought from a Staples shop in the UK in 2012, so I know it was last quarter of 2011, ( the photo in #5.)

The stamping of the datecodes does vary a great deal from 'deep', to 'almost not there', and, over time they can wear off too.

The modern datecode system started in 1979, second half, so if the pen really has no date code then it must have been made before then.

I think the chrome plating also gives an idea of the decade the pen was made, older 'Jotter'/'Vector' type nibs were less chrome plated, looking more 'steel', the nibs made in the 2000's were more deeply chromed, three examples in my photo, with dates.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Mike 59

[mitto]

The parker 15 like FP (with clip different from that on the P15/P45) was first introduced as Parker mixy in France in 1979. Its production in the UK and USA began in 1980 with the current 45 like clip on it. So there are no chances of P15 FP to have been made before 1980.

[ceejaybee]

It is a bit tricky. U would be a date code for 4Q, 1991 and 4Q, 2001 also. In fact all the 4th Quarter date codes such as Q U A L I T Y P E N would be common for all the three corresponding years (90s, 2000s and 2010s).

 

Regards.

 

The date code for 4Q 2001 is U. all the final quarter date codes used between 2000 & 2009 are followed by the dot

[mitto]

The date code for 4Q 2001 is U. all the final quarter date codes used between 2000 & 2009 are followed by the dot

Strange ! Never heard or read about that. Would you please quote your source?

[mitto]

You may see the date codes for the final quarters from 1990 to 2010 here:

 

 

http://parkerpens.net/codekey.html

[ceejaybee]

You may see the date codes for the final quarters from 1990 to 2010 here:

http://parkerpens.net/codekey.html

Unfortunately mitto just as the datecodes for 2010 & 2011 are incorrect at the site you linked to so are the final quarter date codes for 2000 - 2009, I can assure you there should be a dot after.

[mitto]

I know that the date codes for 2010 onward on tony's site are incorrect. But that mistake of putting the letter first and the numbers second for the second consecutive decade does not affect the date code for the final quarter of any year. The 4th quarter is always a letter with no dot, no number. The numbers in fact replaced the earlier dots system. In that system, too, three dots meant first quarter, two dots second quarter, one dot third quarter and no dot the fourth quarter.

 

 

Edited to add this useful link:

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/284105-parker-sonnet-finishes-and-datecodes/page-2

Edited April 25, 2016 by mitto

[ceejaybee]

I know that the date codes for 2010 onward on tony's site are incorrect. But that mistake of putting the letter first and the numbers second for the second consecutive decade does not affect the date code for the final quarter of any year. The 4th quarter is always a letter with no dot, no number. The numbers in fact replaced the earlier dots system. In that system, too, three dots meant first quarter, two dots second quarter, one dot third quarter and no dot the fourth quarter.

 

 

Edited to add this useful link:

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/284105-parker-sonnet-finishes-and-datecodes/page-2

 

My reference to the mistake with 2010 onwards date codes simply shows that the list at parkerpens.net site is unreliable. Discrepancies were noted in FPN forums earlier than your 'discovery' of it last year, please can you give some firm evidence to backup your claim that "The 4th quarter is always a letter with no dot, no number"? I'm not sure that because Parker omitted the dot for 4thQ date codes in earlier decades when they were using a different date coding system really adds any weight to your theory.

[Mike 59]

I have a few Parkers bought by myself, new, in the 2000 decade.

In my photo, left to right, Jotter 2005, Frontier 2008, and Frontier 2009.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Mike 59

[mitto]

See QUARTER and NUMBER

 

 

http://www.richardspens.com/index_m.html?page=ref/misc/pkr_dates.htm

 

 

See the specific entry for the 2000 decade

 

 

http://dirck.delint.ca/beta/?page_id=4757

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/2609-cryptic-markings-on-parker-caps/

 

See for date codes for "1987 onward" with no exception for the decade 2000 - 2009.

 

http://www.vintagepens.com/FAQhistory/Parker_date_codes.shtml

 

 

http://captainchang.com/pens/parker.html

Edited April 25, 2016 by mitto

[ceejaybee]

See QUARTER and NUMBER

 

 

http://www.richardspens.com/index_m.html?page=ref/misc/pkr_dates.htm

 

 

See the specific entry for the 2000 decade

 

 

http://dirck.delint.ca/beta/?page_id=4757

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/2609-cryptic-markings-on-parker-caps/

 

 

http://www.vintagepens.com/FAQhistory/Parker_date_codes.shtml

 

 

http://captainchang.com/pens/parker.html

 

From your 1st link.......

 

 

"From 1987 through 1999, the quarter designation precedes the year letter, and it is in the form of the Roman numerals III, II, I, and nothing:"

 

 

this change is now widely believed to have taken place in 1988 not 1987. The chart is only relevant for pen produced until 1999, the author does not make reference to 4thQ date codes for pens produced after 1999.

 

"It appears that Parker made no format changes in 2010; pens made in 2010 bear date codes identical to those on pens made in 2000."

 

do you believe this?

 

 

from your 2nd link......

 

caveat

 

 

regarding the 3rd link.......

 

did you take the time to read post #1 in which the OP mentions his Parker 45? I also urge you to study the list in #2

 

 

the 4th & 5th links also makes reference to the date code changing in 1987 rather than 1988 and neither sites specifically refer to the 4th quarter date codes used between 2000-2009

Edited April 25, 2016 by ceejaybee

[mitto]

My reference to the mistake with 2010 onwards date codes simply shows that the list at parkerpens.net site is unreliable. Discrepancies were noted in FPN forums earlier than your 'discovery' of it last year, please can you give some firm evidence to backup your claim that "The 4th quarter is always a letter with no dot, no number"? I'm not sure that because Parker omitted the dot for 4thQ date codes in earlier decades when they were using a different date coding system really adds any weight to your theory.

Since you accept that the general rule is that the fourth quarter is date coded with just the letter with no number/dot but you claim an exception for the 2000 - 2009 decades, it is very reasonable that you should provide an evidence for your claim rather than demanding the same for the generally accepted rule. Hope you would give that 'firm evidence' to establish the exception that you claim.

 

Regards.