Prototype Parker 61

[Glenn-SC]

I recently acquired a prototype Parker 61.

The Seller claimed "This pen was purchased from the collection of Alfred Diotte. A prominent employee at Parker pen being the Senior Vice President of Administration and a board member."

 

The first thing I did when I got the pen was to immerse the nib in cool water for one minute. There was "blue/black" ink leaching from the immersed nib/filler plate. I took it out of the water and was able to write several pages with the reconstituted ink. I believe that this was very much a working pen until it was finally put down to dry out.

 

Here are the Cap and Barrel "Jewels", a "P" and a "61", respectively.

One thing I did test; at Richard Binder's RichardsPens.com, he states that "The technical fault that killed this concept, however, is the fact that with the back end of the barrel open, the pen could not exert a vacuum to retain ink." But if you look at the first of the two patent drawings, you see that the "back end" of the capillary "roll" is sealed by parts 72 and 78 (and others). I filled the pen with ink and then stood it nib up and capped on a blotter for 1/2 hour and there was no leakage out of the end of the barrel. I then took the cap of and stood it nib up on a blotter for an hour. No leakage."

 

(Why do I never notice the Crud until after I take photos?)

The body of the prototype is shorter than a Normal Production pen but the cap is the same length and capped the pens are the same length.
While the prototype appears to be "jointless", if I look close I can see a line running almost all the way around the barrel (see to the left in the image below).

This joint may have been chemically welded closed. It's pretty tight and not continuous all the way around the barrel.

No, I haven't tried to unscrew anything.

This joint is also not at the location shown in the Patent Drawing.

And I have never seen a Clip with "feathers" like these before!

 

The plate covering the capillary fill hole under the nib appears to be shaped slightly different form the prototype shown on Richard's website. This plate is more pointed, longer, and contacts the bottom of the nib.

 

I repeatedly filled the pen with clean water and then drained it onto paper towel until it was "clean". (Just a tint of blue/black on the paper actually.)

I then filled the pen by by sticking the nib end into an ink bottle for a minute.

It writes as well as any other 61, and I have been leaving it laying horizontally for several weeks now testing it every day or two, and it starts right up every time.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Glenn-SC

[FarmBoy]

There is an article on these pens in Pen World a few years back.

[christof]

What a cool pen! Thanks for sharing.

C.

[Glenn-SC]

There is an article on these pens in Pen World a few years back.

 

Is there a link or other access to that article?

[Glenn-SC]

The prototype is shorter than a production 61.

[jaytaylor]

Thanks for sharing such a fascinating and rare Parker.

[catbert]

Very interesting pen. The last photo is reminiscent of an Omas 361.

[FarmBoy]

Glen,

 

Email me. I’ll see if I still have a copy.

 

Todd

[Glenn-SC]

I guess my point is, if the information on these prototypes is not readily available to the greater fountain pen population, is it not a good thing to make what admittedly limited information I have available here?

[doggle2]

I have to say ... this 61 is more attractive than the production models.

[baz666]

Nice 61 Glenn,

I recently acquired a Parker 61 / 75? Flighter Ball pen with a chrome plated version of this clip (tassie is also unusual).
It was purchased from an ex Technical Division Parker employee that was having a clear out.
I have no information on why this style of clip was used on this pen, possibly market research? Certainly out of the ordinary.

 

 

 

Paul.

[inkstainedruth]

Very cool (I'm glad you showed the cap and barrel end because I had been wondering how you knew it was a prototype).

I have several 61s and I did much the same thing as you -- wrote with the ink in the capillary fillers after reconstituting it (although in my case I was -- more or less -- following the flushing directions I'd gotten from the person I'd bought the first one to; the difference being that I was flushing distilled water through the pens with a bulb syringe rather than sticking them under the tap because I have hard water where I live). With the first one, once it ran "dry" I did it again, and then continued to do so for nearly four MONTHS until the ink was so diluted it was illegible on the page. I have the turquoise (?) one inked up at the moment with J Herbin Rose Cyclamen.

One tip for the capillary fill models -- avoid really saturated inks or ones that can be problematic (like the ones with the metallic dust in them; and possibly also pigmented inks). Simply because they are kind of a PITA to clean. Some people don't like them because they're not made with the same grade of material as a Parker 51 (one of mine has a small crack in the barrel but once I got the capillary filler cleaned out well it hasn't been an issue). But the fill system is just so neat (I'm constantly amused by the concept that Sheaffer's answer to the encroachment of ballpoint pens was the Snorkel -- with the most convoluted fill system on the planet; while Parker's solution was the capillary fill 61...).

Of course we all now want pix of a writing sample with the reconstituted ink... (also known as "Pix or it didn't happen!" ).

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[Glenn-SC]

Whatever black ink was originally in the pen is impressive.

Here is a writing sample of the original "residual/reconstituted" black and the current fill with Pelikan Turquoise.

[Yes, poor handwriting; yes, mixed cursive and print; yes, mixed capitals and small letters; etc]

I wrote several pages of notes with the black ink before I decided to clean it out and try the Pelikan.

The second picture is the paper towel I drained the reconstituted ink out with when I cleaned the pen.
The "ink blot" pattern is from the ink wicking through the folded layers of towel.

 

 

I can see at least 3 reasons why this prototype design was altered for the final:
1 - If you look at the patent drawings you will see lot and lots of complicated parts. More parts equals more costs (material, labor). So the redesigned back-fill capillary design has to be cheaper.

2 - Cleaning. The only way to clean this prototype design is repeated filling and emptying. The ink-in is the ink-out, so there is no "power flush with a bulb" cleaning option.

and

3 - How do you service it? If, indeed, the barrel is sealed, I see no way to disassemble the pen to clean or repair. A clogged or damaged pen means a full replacement.

[shamwari]

Very nice, many thanks for posting this. What a great find.

[FarmBoy]

I guess my point is, if the information on these prototypes is not readily available to the greater fountain pen population, is it not a good thing to make what admittedly limited information I have available here?

I don’t know if PenWorld has an online archive. Your pen is interesting. I would call it a Test Market pen and not exactly a prototype. The cap is interesting but before comment I need to find a folder and some pictures from the Parker Archive which may be on an old lap top.

 

I’ll see if I can dig up some fun stuff on these.

 

There are matching pencils as well.

[Glenn-SC]

I would call it a Test Market pen and not exactly a prototype.

 

That is interesting.

Where/when was this design test marketed?

[RalphP]

Very interesting and beautiful pen, Glenn.

 

It has always interested me how many test market or prototype pens found their way to Parker employees - I suspect they may have had some sort of informal or perhaps formal policy of trying out new designs in-house prior to any release to the public. Dealers also seemed to received a fair share of early versions whether they went into production or not - sort of like the "blood red" 51.

 

Just an observation...