This Duofold - A Very Young 'vintage'?

[Bill Nick]

This Duofold is being advertised as "vintage", I believe it's nowhere near vintage, probably 80s, but I could be wrong. Can anyone confirm it's likely age?

[Beechwood]

A little bit older than 1980s Bill, late 60s would be there or thereabouts.

 

Looks to be in very good condition by the way, not a mark on it apart from a scruffy nib.

[PaulS]

The 'Duofold' was one of the first Newhaven aero fillers to be made - the other apparently being the Demi-Duofold - and both were launched in 1953. That's not remotely to suggest this particular example was made then, but it could well have some reasonable years under its belt, so there's nothing really wrong in describing this pen as vintage, in my opinion - it's a word that seems to have become part of acceptable modern parlance when describing items not old enough to be antique.

Of course the word itself is over used and meaningless - it's better to be specific if possible - but collectors will be aware of the word and its meaning and should have some idea of production dates of these Newhaven pens, so will have some idea of it's age - whether or not they like the word vintage.

 

P.S. apart from a possible date code, if the nib is correct it should show the No. 25 - to the left.

Edited September 9, 2017 by PaulS

[grainweevil]

I suppose if you're young enough, even something from the 1980s would be vintage. Anyway, my notes on such things give dates of 1953-1961 for the aerometric Duofold Standard, if so it be. The end date may be squishy, but fwiw.

[Beechwood]

Not the whole story saying that Duofold nibs are all marked 25. Comment is misleading.

 

This topic has been covered many times on FPN and it is more accurate to say that when a Newhaven nib is marked for size it can be shown as 25 or other numbers.

 

Sample thread, there are others.

 

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/topic/278936-nib-codes-on-english-parkers/

[PaulS]

quote ...... "Not the whole story saying that Duofold nibs are all marked 25. Comment is misleading." I agree, and I should have clarified a little more the apparent dating for those nibs that might carry this No.

According to the book (apparently more suspect than you might believe), the designation of nib Nos. - which depended on the model within this aero range - commenced around 1958 - allegedly the N for Newhaven was removed at the same time.

But as we all know, nibs are the most replaced part of a pen, and can be misleading.

If there is a 25 on this nib, then it can be said that this was the nib size specified for the Newhaven aero Duofold - and might suggest this pen was made post 1958 - or made earlier with a nib replacement.

Other numbers referred to i.e. 4/5/10/15/35 or 50 were designated for other models in the range - would any of those fit this Newhaven Duofold?

Edited September 9, 2017 by PaulS

[Beechwood]

The other numbers refer to Parker size codes for other pens.

 

If there was a size code on this Duofold then it should say 25. Nib looks contemporary to the pen.

[mitto]

The other numbers refer to Parker size codes for other pens.

 

If there was a size code on this Duofold then it should say 25. Nib looks contemporary to the pen.

The standard aero Duofold that came with the #25 nib has a broad chevron cab band while this pen has a narrow cap band. It looks to be either a Junior or a Slimfold. Or it could be the Senior with the #35 nib. All these three models have the narrow cap band as on this pen.

[mitto]

 

P.S. apart from a possible date code, if the nib is correct it should show the No. 25 - to the left.

I am afraid it is not a #25 nibbed standard Duofold as it has a narrow cap bad. The Standard with the #25 nib came with a broad decorative cheron cap band as on the Vacumatics, Duofold NSs and AFs

[Bill Nick]

The standard aero Duofold that came with the #25 nib has a broad chevron cab band while this pen has a narrow cap band. It looks to be either a Junior or a Slimfold. Or it could be the Senior with the #35 nib. All these three models have the narrow cap band as on this pen.

 

Yet the barrel on this one is engraved "Parker Duofold", Mitto.

[Bill Nick]

A little bit older than 1980s Bill, late 60s would be there or thereabouts.

 

Looks to be in very good condition by the way, not a mark on it apart from a scruffy nib.

 

Thanks, Beechwood.

[Bill Nick]

The 'Duofold' was one of the first Newhaven aero fillers to be made - the other apparently being the Demi-Duofold - and both were launched in 1953. That's not remotely to suggest this particular example was made then, but it could well have some reasonable years under its belt, so there's nothing really wrong in describing this pen as vintage, in my opinion - it's a word that seems to have become part of acceptable modern parlance when describing items not old enough to be antique.

Of course the word itself is over used and meaningless - it's better to be specific if possible - but collectors will be aware of the word and its meaning and should have some idea of production dates of these Newhaven pens, so will have some idea of it's age - whether or not they like the word vintage.

 

P.S. apart from a possible date code, if the nib is correct it should show the No. 25 - to the left.

 

Where would the date code be found? Ah, it's ok, I know, on the nib!

Edited September 9, 2017 by BillNick

[grainweevil]

Yet the barrel on this one is engraved "Parker Duofold", Mitto.

 

My Duofold Senior (no.35 nib) has the same engraving; unhelpfully it's not definitive. Which is partially why I added the "if so it be" caveat onto my post. Something was nagging at me that the ID as a straight up "Duofold" was troublesome, so thank goodness for Khan who was on the ball and remembers which had what width of cap band. The nib in this one, incidentally, looks nothing at all like the no.35 nib in my Senior, but, naturally, that's not definitive either.

[Beechwood]

I havent given up trying to apply hard and fast rules, Parker were not fussy about the correct nib being to a Duofold when it went for repair, I have 2 Vacumatics that Parker fitted with Duofold nibs and a Moderne that they fitted with a Junior nib in the 1950s. Peter Arthur routinely swapped nibs according to his stock and not neccessarily whether it was right for the model and at the time he was the largest pen repairer in the UK, he repaired my Senior Duofold in 1970, it came back with a 25 oblique nib. Unless a pen has its chalk marks then I wouldnt rely on what band width, nib numbering or tapered cap to have any reassurance that the spec is correct on a 50 year old pen, its guesswork.

 

I have seen dealers at pen shows over the past 12 years swap caps indescrimately between one Duofold and another, as long as it fitted and was close to the shade of the barrel, it would do. Another UK repairer still fits whatever Parker clip will fit to keep the pen in use which he regards as more important than originilaty.

 

Just had a look at my Duofolds and found this one that I bought iused n 1980, a 25 nib with a thin band cap.

 

 

Edit to change Peter to Arthur

Edited September 10, 2017 by Beechwood

[mitto]

https://parkerpens.net/bilder_pennor/uk-duofolds/uk-duofolds-aerometric-adamon-1200.jpg

 

 

The third from above is the standard aero Duofold with the #25 nib. Your pen most probably, as you yourself have elaborated on the fact/practice , has either a wrong replacement cap or a wrong numbered replacement nib.

 

PS.

Pens in the linked image (from above)

 

1) Duofold Maxima (#50 nib)

2) Duofold Senior (#35 nib)

3) Duofold Standard (#25 nib)

4) Duofold Demi (#15 nib)

5) Duofold Junior (#10 nib)

6) Duofold Victory (#10 nib)

7) Duofold Slimfold (#5 nib)

8) Duofold Lady (#4 nib)

 

Hope that helps.

Edited September 10, 2017 by mitto

[mitto]

Only the Maxima (#50 nib), the Standard (#25 nib) and the Demi (#15 nib) have the wide decorated chevron cap bands. The rest all have thin cap bands.

 

Interestingly the Senior (#35 nib) though larger than the Standard and Demi came with the thin cap band like on the bottom smaller pens like Junior, Victory, Slimfold and Lady.

Edited September 10, 2017 by mitto

[PaulS]

thanks mitto for reminding us of the cap band width which helps to at least know which body we're talking about. There's an obvious difference in shape between the cigar looks of the Duofold proper (25 nib) and Demi (15 nib), and those smaller/slimmer pens that would correctly be fitted with either 10 or 5 nibs, and have narrow bands.

 

Having looked at some of my aero pens that are definitely not proper Duofolds i.e. they do not have wide cap bands, they're slim shapes and do not carry nibs marked 25 or 15 .................. it seems that however much of a disappointment it is, hard and fast rules will never apply - since there are anomalies in barrel markings, which appear to contradict our expectations. I have barrels marked PARKER DUOFOLD, PARKER JUNIOR and PARKER JUNIOR DUOFOLD .................. all of which fit the slimmer profile with narrow band, all are the same length and all are fitted with a No. 10 nib that in theory is fitted to the JUNIOR DUOFOLD only.

This may not bother us, but to the uneducated will cause confusion perhaps when selling - and my suggestion regarding the OP's original photo is that the pen in question is correctly a JUNIOR DUOFOLD with a No. 10 nib (the only likely nib with a zero that fits is a JD) - we might perhaps say that the barrel is wrongly marked??

 

The most problematic are those marked PARKER DUOFOLD, since people looking at pix only may well assume the pen is the larger cigar model - 25 nib), and not be aware of the cap band difference.

 

I've only a couple of examples, and I could be wrong, but it does appear that when Newhaven were making 18 ct. nibs for these aero pens for the French market, this No. designation looks to have been omitted from the nib - does that sound about right?

 

Apart from appearing on nibs, date codes are also found on barrels for this series, but they look to be faint in general - or perhaps I just buy worn pens.

Edited September 10, 2017 by PaulS

[BT_Summers]

That is very well put PaulS, very complete. I was thinking along the same lines but wanted to avoid the inevitable argument.

 

There are no hard and fast rules and providing a definitive list which says that certain Duofolds have specific nibs is, at its kindest, inaccurate.

 

We have all seen Duofolds that do not fit the rules in #16 and give every appearance of being untouched from the factory.

 

I would be concerned if someone was to be looking at their standard Duofold and be concerned that is doesnt have the 25 nib.

 

Edit.. Can I also suggest that as these points are now well off topic but remain important that they would be better transferring to a thread of their own for future reference purposes.

Edited September 10, 2017 by smiffy20000

[mitto]

I am afraid I was not able to elaborate on my point.

 

No doubt the nibs mave have been replaced on any of these pens. Or some of these pens may have originally come out of the factory with nibs other than those that are generally identified with the specific models of these pens. So the nib number may not help in some cases in identifying as to what model the pen is. But one thing is certain. And that is that pens with wide decorative chevron cap bands would - depending of course on the size of the pen - be one of these three models:

the Maxima,

the Standard, and

the Demi.

 

While those with narrow cap bands would -again depending on the size of the pen - be one of the other five models ie:

the Senior,

the junior,

the Victory,

the Slimfold and

the Lady.

 

The Summary:

 

1) The nib numbers are the identifiers of the models but not always.

2) The size of the pen and the width of the cap band are definitive identifiers of the models.

Edited September 10, 2017 by mitto

[PaulS]

again, I think we all agree with you Khan, and it seems the culprit responsible for most of the confusion - and the confusion appears to be almost entirely related to the model known as the JUNIOR DUOFOLD - was the Newhaven factory. Pens made in accordance with the specification for that particular model, were given different barrel imprints, and it's this variation of names that potentially makes for confusion.

 

Regret I don't yet have a Demi - were production Nos. lower than for other models in the series??

 

Again, thanks for the help on this one.