Why did the Parker 100 fail?

[welch]

Why did the Parker 100 fail? Parker made them from about 2004 to about 2007, which is a short run for a pen model, and especially short for one designed with such care. See interview with Geoff Hollington from a few days ago.

 

For an earlier discussion, there were complaints that often the "right from the box" pen needed a nib adjustment and that the feed system sometimes needed cleaning. Those are both QC problems.

 

Why invest -- probably a lot -- to design the pen and to crank up manufacturing only to kill the pen so quickly? Especially if better QC could correct the problems?

 

Even if the pen sold poorly those first few years, it must be easier to improve production QC than to start over on a new pen.

[hatherton_wood]

Why did the Parker 100 fail? Parker made them from about 2004 to about 2007, which is a short run for a pen model, and especially short for one designed with such care. See interview with Geoff Hollington from a few days ago.

 

I heard that it broke all too easily. To be honest quite a few of Parkers recent pens have design weaknesses of one sort or another and do not last without problems.

[georges zaslavsky]

Parker isn't what it used to be, that is why. Quality out of the box is far to match the quality set by the glorious ancestors from the 30's to the 50's.

[henry660721]

I've also interviewed Mr. Hollington for my dissertation few years ago and I think he did a good job, so I bought one, which is the only modern Parker pen I have. However, a successful product need to success in every link from design, manufacture, cost control, marketing to service, and not every company can do all of these well, especially for a company with multiple brands.

 

 

[seymour]

I don't know why the Parker 100 failed, but I do have my personal experience.

 

I bought a Parker 100. It is a good pen and I enjoy using it. However, I have 13 Parker 51s and most of them are better than the Parker 100. There are still millions of Parker 51s in circulation. What chance does the Parker 100 have?

 

I also have a Duofold International, which, in my opinion, is far better than a Parker 100. My guess is that the Parker 100 was in the right place but at the wrong time

 

Chaim

[RLTodd]

Frankly, I don't know why they made the thing. It really has no place in the product line. The market clearly shows there is no demand for a pen between the top of the line Sonnet and the Duofold International.

 

I thought it was obvious.

 

YMMV

 

[Aysedasi]

Do the hideous barrel colour and cap combinations have anything to do with it........? (IMO)

Edited July 12, 2009 by Aysedasi

[welch]

- Parker must have invested quite a bit to design and produce the 100. If the ugly blue color caused the pen not to sell, Parker could have filled the shelves with sober black and even made one in their dark blue -- like Cedar Blue.

 

Three years on the market seems like a short time to give up on their investment expense.

 

- Slot in the lineup? There is a large gap above a Sonnet. You can put glimmer on a Sonnet, but it's still a Sonnet. Compare the Pelikan or Sailor lines.

Edited July 12, 2009 by welch

[RLTodd]

- The color selection was one of the things that I had no objection towards.

 

[Richard]

I think a major factor in the 100's failure was its nibs. Out of the box, they are typically misaligned and/or improperly ground. With pretty much equal frequency, they tend to flow like a flash flood or like a dry wash. They're also made of a very soft 18K alloy, and they bend with remarkable ease. This makes them relatively hard to adjust.

 

Another problem, I think, was that Parker wanted to do a 21st-century update on the classic style of the "51", but the pen buying public didn't want such a pen. I own this 100, and although I don't use it all that often, I do like it and use it.

 

http://www.richardspens.com/images/collection/zoomed/parker_100_sample.jpg

 

(Afterthought: For those not familiar with the term, a dry wash is an arroyo or a coulee in whose bed there is no water.)

[skybird]

Do the hideous barrel colour and cap combinations have anything to do with it........? (IMO)

I like the colours ;-)

I like the design ;-)

I like Parker ;-)

 

But like all my modern pens - I don't write with them................

[jonro]

I had one, but returned it. I wasn't crazy about the color combinations, but I had the cobalt with silver trim, and that wasn't too bad. I liked the size of the pen and I liked the feel of the nib. The problem with mine was that it was a very hard starter, taking four of five strokes to get going. I didn't like the 100 enough to go through the trouble and the expense of getting it adjusted professionally, so I returned it. If it had worked properly out of the box, I would have kept it and probably enjoyed it.

[richardandtracy]

.... If it had worked properly out of the box, ...

That is a recurring theme about modern Parkers.

It really isn't good enough is it?

 

Regards,

 

Richard.

 

[Wolverine1]

I have a Parker 100, that I initially wanted to trow into the garbage bin, because it performed very poorly. Ink flow was inconsistent, and the nib was really scratchy, and wrote poorly. Then, a friend from Pentrace who lives in my town, gave it a very good cleaning, got all the dried up ink that was clogging the feed out, and he aligned the tines of the nib. Since then, it has worked very well.

 

However, if that friend hadnt been around, I would have had to send it to Richard. Which would have cost additional time and money.

selling a pen with flaws is probably the reason why Parker was forced to withdraw the Parker 100 design

[Batman]

And like Richard said, the 100 design was based on the 51 design which only a handful of people actually appreciate. To the general public, when they buy a fountain pen, which is already a rare occurance, they want the nib to flash out so that people know it's a fountain pen. Obviously the 100 doesn't have that and the general pen user doesn't know anything about the 51 to appreciate its design.

[framebaer]

And like Richard said, the 100 design was based on the 51 design which only a handful of people actually appreciate. To the general public, when they buy a fountain pen, which is already a rare occurance, they want the nib to flash out so that people know it's a fountain pen. Obviously the 100 doesn't have that and the general pen user doesn't know anything about the 51 to appreciate its design.

 

I think this is not true today, just as it was not true when Parker was selling MILLIONS of 51's.

[Shangas]

I think Batman has whacked the nail firmly on the head an driven it home. Framebaer, I think it is true.

 

The difference between the 100 and the '51' is that when the '51' was being sold, between 1941-ca.1972, people knew what a fountain pen was, they knew what a hooded nib was, and could appreciate it for what it was.

 

These days, few people use fountain pens and even fewer understand what a hooded nib is. Even though I have used fountain pens for 2/3 of my life, I confess myself that until recently, I had no idea what a hooded nib was, or indeed, why anyone would want such a thing.

 

The Parker '100' essentially catered to a very very niche market. It catered, in my mind, not to the general public, but to those who use fountain pens regularly and who would appreciate a hooded nib. Parker shot itself in the foot when it failed at even that. That's probably the reason why the '100' has failed so much.

[Aysedasi]

Do the hideous barrel colour and cap combinations have anything to do with it........? (IMO)

I like the colours ;-)

I like the design ;-)

I like Parker ;-)

 

But like all my modern pens - I don't write with them................

 

 

How many modern pens do you have that you don't write with?

[grimakis]

I think Batman has whacked the nail firmly on the head an driven it home. Framebaer, I think it is true.

 

The difference between the 100 and the '51' is that when the '51' was being sold, between 1941-ca.1972, people knew what a fountain pen was, they knew what a hooded nib was, and could appreciate it for what it was.

 

These days, few people use fountain pens and even fewer understand what a hooded nib is. Even though I have used fountain pens for 2/3 of my life, I confess myself that until recently, I had no idea what a hooded nib was, or indeed, why anyone would want such a thing.

 

The Parker '100' essentially catered to a very very niche market. It catered, in my mind, not to the general public, but to those who use fountain pens regularly and who would appreciate a hooded nib. Parker shot itself in the foot when it failed at even that. That's probably the reason why the '100' has failed so much.

 

That is almost true....

 

Since the Parker "51" was the first pen to actually have a hooded nib, virtually nobody had knowledge of hooded nibs prior to its release. The reason that people bought it, is because Parker had good advertising. The ads and catalogs flaunted the advantages of hooded nibs in the consumer's face. The person reading it knew that he/she must go buy a "51", because the pen they currently owned was inferior.

[antonio ilmonaco]

hmmm....maybe sales figures weren't that bad. However i wonder how many customers returned their pens for repairs. I bet at least 50%...

 

all the best,

antonio