P 51 Mk Ii

[jetsam]

My research has shown that P 51 Mk II pens have squared off (like P45) barrel ends.

They seem to be almost non existant in online sales, and some pens advertised as P 51 Mk II show rounded barrel ends. Are they mis-represented or were P 51 Mk II also made with rounded ends?

I'm interested because the P 51 Mk II has also been described as the most reliable of the P 51s, a sort of P51 of the P51s, so to speak.

Is that why no one wants to sell them?

BTW, I'm still a newbie.

Edited May 4, 2014 by jetsam

[migo984]

My research has shown that P 51 Mk II pens have squared off (like P45) barrel ends.

They seem to be almost non existant in online sales, and some pens advertised as P 51 Mk II show rounded barrel ends. Are they mis-represented or were P 51 Mk II also made with rounded ends?

I'm interested because the P 51 Mk II has also been described as the most reliable of the P 51s, a sort of P51 of the P51s, so to speak.

Is that why no one wants to sell them?

BTW, I'm still a newbie.

 

I have just offered a P51 as a PIF. I have no idea what Mk it is to be honest but it does have a squared off end. There is a picture in the Pay It Forward thread. I'd be interested to know which Mk it is.

[dali3464]

 

I have just offered a P51 as a PIF. I have no idea what Mk it is to be honest but it does have a squared off end. There is a picture in the Pay It Forward thread. I'd be interested to know which Mk it is.

 

Mk = Mark. It refers to the three versions of the Parker 51 Aerometric. Richard Binder's excellent page on the Parker 51 explains very well the differences between the Mark I, II and III.

 

Edit: Silly me! I misread your quote. You were asking which Mk it is, not what a Mk is. Both the Mk II and III had squared off ends, the most visible difference is the clutch ring: the Mk II had a similar clutch ring to the Mk I (the type you usually see on all 51s) while the Mk III has a narrow, non-functional trim ring.

 

Edit2: Just found your post on the PIF thread migo! It looks like it's a MK III since it has the narrow trim ring than the broader clutch ring as found on the MK I and II.

 

Jetsam, I think the major reason is that it was produced for a relatively short period . Richard Binder's article indicates MK II was introduced in the mid 60s with the MK III following very quickly after in 1969 and the 51 series completely retiring in 1971. Compare the Mk I that began production in 1948.

Edited May 4, 2014 by dali3464

[OcalaFlGuy]

I can completely understand the confusion as to the Mks.

 

Rest assured, you are in good company.

 

Not even the experts with the books and websites can agree on what Mk is what Mk. Remember that as best I know, the Factory didn't "assign" these designations and when Others do that After the fact, there are bound to be differences in opinion as to what new and improved whatever constitutes Enough of a change to be a New Mk.

 

A Large part of the difference is due to some saying the Vac 51 is Mk I and others not Mking until the Aero.

 

I usually refer to the squared off versions as the last/final renditions. I think most people who hear that know what I mean. IMO, not only are the differences in the two squared off versions not enough to be concerned with, they certainly aren't distinct Enough to warrant a new Mk.

 

Remember that by the mid 60's when the final renditions came out, the BP had already began to make serious inroads on the FP. The changes to those last renditions Weren't to make the pen write better, they were to save money. It is generally understood they Don't write as well as the rounded versions.

 

IMO, any difficulty in finding them lies with less of them being made and sold, Not with everyone using a final rendition as an EDC.

 

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

[dali3464]

Adding onto what Bruce said, parkerpens.net refers to the MK II as 'the most functional fountain pen ever made', however he is not referring to the mid 60s-69 version, but rather the 48-mid 60s. Richard Binder labels the 51s produced from 48 to the mid 60s as the MK I. He cites a Parker service manual, and I'm guessing that Parker considered the 51 Vacumatic separately in the 'Mark' categorisation and only applied it to the Aerometric 51s.

 

But the MK II and III Aerometrics tend to have some odd design features. The MK II has a redundant clutch ring I believe, since the clutch fingers catch onto the hood. The MK III is also made of styrene, which I think is somewhat less hardy than the Lucite used earlier. David Nishimura for e.g. recommends a hot water bath as a safe method for removing Parker 51 hoods, but he cautions against this method when it comes to the later MK IIIs since the styrene tends to shrink and deform quite easily.

[Paul80]

Hi

 

It's also often discussed as to what a Mk 1 is, some class the First incarnation of the 51 as the Mk1 which does sound quite obvious but the first version was the Vacumatic, then there are those that class the first version of the Aerometic pens as the Mk1, it all depends on who's book you read.. I go with he Vac being the Mk1 and the first Aerometic being the Mk2.

 

Just to confuse things even more I have seen a few that have the rounded end barrel of the early pens but the thin clutch ring of the later versions and no one has ever been able to ID that one.

 

Paul

[jetsam]

Believe it or not, I am now much clearer on the topic and I'm NOT being sarcastic.

Thanks.

[mitto]

Hi

It's also often discussed as to what a Mk 1 is, some class the First incarnation of the 51 as the Mk1 which does sound quite obvious but the first version was the Vacumatic, then there are those that class the first version of the Aerometic pens as the Mk1, it all depends on who's book you read.. I go with he Vac being the Mk1 and the first Aerometic being the Mk2.

Just to confuse things even more I have seen a few that have the rounded end barrel of the early pens but the thin clutch ring of the later versions and no one has ever been able to ID that one.

Paul

Correct. I have just bought a 51 with the rounded end barrel of the early pens but with the thin clutch ring of the later pens and I am curious to know what MK is this pen. Does anyone have any clue? Here is the pen:

 

 

 

 

 

The picture is the one provided by the seller. The pen has not yet arrived.

Edited December 15, 2015 by mitto

[soapytwist]

 

Jetsam, I think the major reason is that it was produced for a relatively short period . Richard Binder's article indicates MK II was introduced in the mid 60s with the MK III following very quickly after in 1969 and the 51 series completely retiring in 1971. Compare the Mk I that began production in 1948.

 

One other thing to note is that the MkIII was produced for quite a bit longer in the UK, finishing up around 1976 with pens in shops possibly a couple years after that.

[mariom]

Correct. I have just bought a 51 with the rounded end barrel of the early pens but with the thin clutch ring of the later pens and I am curious to know what MK is this pen. Does anyone have any clue? Here is the pen:

 

 

 

IMG-20151215-WA0001-1.jpg

 

The picture is the one provided by the seller. The pen has not yet arrived.

 

I like Richard Binder's categorization of the 51, and only the Aerometrics are Mk designated. Even then there are differences within the Mk categories, with the Mk1 having variations such as the press 6 times/press 4 time fillers.

 

There is less variation in the Mk2 and Mk3, this looks like a Mk2. The give-aways are a rounded barrel end, a simplified filler cover without the plastic end-cap, and the clutch ring has become a non-functional piece of trim. Am I correct in assuming the cap has a finger clutch (designed to grip on the shell rather than the clutch ring) rather than a basket clutch?

[mitto]

I like Richard Binder's categorization of the 51, and only the Aerometrics are Mk designated. Even then there are differences within the Mk categories, with the Mk1 having variations such as the press 6 times/press 4 time fillers.

 

There is less variation in the Mk2 and Mk3, this looks like a Mk2. The give-aways are a rounded barrel end, a simplified filler cover without the plastic end-cap, and the clutch ring has become a non-functional piece of trim. Am I correct in assuming the cap has a finger clutch (designed to grip on the shell rather than the clutch ring) rather than a basket clutch?

 

Yes , it has a finger clutch ,tapered (narrow ended) cap and a small 61 like pearl jewel but with a 51 MKI like clip (as opposed to 61 like clip). The sac guard has no marking of the make of the pen. Also there is no mention of the use of Parker ink. The Cape says made in England.

Edited December 17, 2015 by mitto

[inkstainedruth]

Ran across this thread in passing and it got me pondering about a pen I have.

I was in the process of flushing out of this pen yesterday that had accidentally gotten put away sometime back with ink still in it (yeah, I know -- my bad; I had pulled it out of the zippered pen case it was in almost by accident, and then when looking at it more closely noticed the dried ink crud around the nib). In the process, I noticed something very odd about it, that I hadn't ever really paid attention to before (mostly because it has an EF nib on it, so I didn't really use it much, and had planned to try my husband -- alias "Mr. BIC fine point" -- out with it to see whether he liked the nib).

The pen is labeled as a Parker 51 -- except it has the hoop-style filler of a 51 Special (it does NOT say "51 Special" on the sac sleeve). In addition, the sleeve says to use Superchrome ink, which *should* IIRC, place it as pre-1956-57. I know that 51 Specials were made that early (I have burgundy 51 Special which also says to use Superchrome in it), but shouldn't it be marked as being a Special? Do I have a frankenpen, or some sort of weird variant? My initial thought was that it's a really late pen in the 51 run -- but there's that pesky mention of Superchrome. And yet it's got the hoop-style fillers of the Specials (and, for that matter, 21s and 41s). My inventory notes don't mention a date code. And while I didn't look that carefully, I *think* it has a gold nib -- not one of the Ocatanium ones that you would expect on a Special.

I will try to get pix up tomorrow (it's really late at the moment).

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[northstar]

IMG-20151215-WA0001-1.jpg

 

That looks like the P61 cap, not an expert but the pen looks to me like a mkiii and the clip could be a replacement.

 

Best regards.

[mitto]

Ran across this thread in passing and it got me pondering about a pen I have.

I was in the process of flushing out of this pen yesterday that had accidentally gotten put away sometime back with ink still in it (yeah, I know -- my bad; I had pulled it out of the zippered pen case it was in almost by accident, and then when looking at it more closely noticed the dried ink crud around the nib). In the process, I noticed something very odd about it, that I hadn't ever really paid attention to before (mostly because it has an EF nib on it, so I didn't really use it much, and had planned to try my husband -- alias "Mr. BIC fine point" -- out with it to see whether he liked the nib).

The pen is labeled as a Parker 51 -- except it has the hoop-style filler of a 51 Special (it does NOT say "51 Special" on the sac sleeve). In addition, the sleeve says to use Superchrome ink, which *should* IIRC, place it as pre-1956-57. I know that 51 Specials were made that early (I have burgundy 51 Special which also says to use Superchrome in it), but shouldn't it be marked as being a Special? Do I have a frankenpen, or some sort of weird variant? My initial thought was that it's a really late pen in the 51 run -- but there's that pesky mention of Superchrome. And yet it's got the hoop-style fillers of the Specials (and, for that matter, 21s and 41s). My inventory notes don't mention a date code. And while I didn't look that carefully, I *think* it has a gold nib -- not one of the Ocatanium ones that you would expect on a Special.

I will try to get pix up tomorrow (it's really late at the moment).

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

The pen seems to be an aero demi. Did you check the size of the pen?

[mitto]

IMG-20151215-WA0001-1.jpg

 

That looks like the P61 cap, not an expert but the pen looks to me like a mkiii and the clip could be a replacement.

 

Best regards.

 

You might be right. The narrow clutch ring suggests it is a mkiii pen. But the round ended short barrel suggests it is a mkii pen. The cap however doesn't look to be a 61 cap. I have mki, mkii and mkiii (c/c) 61 pens and this 51 cap does not match any of those pen caps. The clip top ring also is smaller in diameter. So it can not be from a mki pen. It is smaller in size even than the aero demi / special demi clip.

Edited December 18, 2015 by mitto

[inkstainedruth]

The pen seems to be an aero demi. Did you check the size of the pen?

Mine could very well be a Demi *sized* pen -- since I mistook it for my Plum Aero which IS a Demi (it was fairly gloomy when I pulled it out, and it's black vs the Plummer). But here are photos:

It's clearly got a different fill system from the burgundy 51 that you posted the photo of (and different from any of my "regular" 51s; it's definitely got the hoop filler like on the 21, the 41 and my 51 Special -- but does NOT say "Parker 51 Special" the way my burgundy one does -- just "Parker 51".

And it's not a late model, because of the inscription saying to use Superchrome.

I apologize for the poor lighting (the bathroom vanity top is really white) but the nib really did look gold, not steel.

(I didn't futz with the color correction, but on a few images I did try to sharpen the image).

The cap is pretty generic. I didn't get a photo of the jewel, but it's grey like on my other 51s -- not the black jewel on a 51 Special cap.

I did try to get a close up (not easy to do with an iPhone) of the engraving on the cap -- it just says "Parker" and "Made in USA" and doesn't give the model number, the way some caps do (my 41, for instance) -- unless it's worn off. Nor does it have that Parker logo that you find sometimes.

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[pajaro]

Looks like a Demi. Lots of demis have hoop fillers and no "Special."

[mitto]

Mine could very well be a Demi *sized* pen -- since I mistook it for my Plum Aero which IS a Demi (it was fairly gloomy when I pulled it out, and it's black vs the Plummer). But here are photos:It's clearly got a different fill system from the burgundy 51 that you posted the photo of (and different from any of my "regular" 51s; it's definitely got the hoop filler like on the 21, the 41 and my 51 Special -- but does NOT say "Parker 51 Special" the way my burgundy one does -- just "Parker 51".And it's not a late model, because of the inscription saying to use Superchrome.I apologize for the poor lighting (the bathroom vanity top is really white) but the nib really did look gold, not steel. (I didn't futz with the color correction, but on a few images I did try to sharpen the image).The cap is pretty generic. I didn't get a photo of the jewel, but it's grey like on my other 51s -- not the black jewel on a 51 Special cap. I did try to get a close up (not easy to do with an iPhone) of the engraving on the cap -- it just says "Parker" and "Made in USA" and doesn't give the model number, the way some caps do (my 41, for instance) -- unless it's worn off. Nor does it have that Parker logo that you find sometimes.Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

Mine could very well be a Demi *sized* pen -- since I mistook it for my Plum Aero which IS a Demi (it was fairly gloomy when I pulled it out, and it's black vs the Plummer). But here are photos:It's clearly got a different fill system from the burgundy 51 that you posted the photo of (and different from any of my "regular" 51s; it's definitely got the hoop filler like on the 21, the 41 and my 51 Special -- but does NOT say "Parker 51 Special" the way my burgundy one does -- just "Parker 51".And it's not a late model, because of the inscription saying to use Superchrome.I apologize for the poor lighting (the bathroom vanity top is really white) but the nib really did look gold, not steel. (I didn't futz with the color correction, but on a few images I did try to sharpen the image).The cap is pretty generic. I didn't get a photo of the jewel, but it's grey like on my other 51s -- not the black jewel on a 51 Special cap. I did try to get a close up (not easy to do with an iPhone) of the engraving on the cap -- it just says "Parker" and "Made in USA" and doesn't give the model number, the way some caps do (my 41, for instance) -- unless it's worn off. Nor does it have that Parker logo that you find sometimes.Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

I have the same black aero demi pen. Hoop filler inscribed with just PARKER 51 , gold nib and pearl jewelled lustraloy cap. The hoop filler is not limited to 51 special in the 51 line. The difference is the inscription of the word "special" on the filler of the 51 special and the lack thereof on the latr aero demi. Beside, of course, the size of the two pens.

 

But then again there is the 51 special demi pen. So the demi can also be a 51 special demi. And the 51 specials also did come with gold nibs.

Edited December 19, 2015 by mitto