Was the Plastic Filler Definitively 1942?

[bunnspecial]

Looking at a pen in my collection that I've had for a while(in fact one of my first Vacs) and after going down a dangerous path of collecting these things, I've found a bit of a head scratcher.

 

I have a pen that I'll avoid IDing since there's some controversy around what it's called , but will just say features. It's a double pearl golden pearl the length of a Senior Maxima and the diameter of a Major with an 8-feather nib and a Major-style cap band(not a wider Maxima band)-call it what you will but it's "that pen."

 

In any case, the date stamp is a bit faint but is definitely a 1 and I think no dots(so last quarter 41).

 

The part that has me stumped, though, is it's a plastic filler. I know it's possible it could have been changed, but it's also seemingly right on the transition between speedline and plastic. References I can find, including the Vacumatic book(if I'm reading it correctly) and a few websites seem to indicate the plastic filler as a 42 feature. There again, the book, if I'm reading right, talks about transition models, but it seems to refer to single jewel Speedline pens, not the inverse(double jewel plastic).

 

Is there a chance this filler is original, or is it a likely replacement?

[joss]

Parker was forced to phase out the metal Speedline filler and the blind cap jewel after the US government issued WWII related restrictions in early 1942 on the use of certain metals. A plastic filler in a 4thQ 1941 Vacumatic would mean that, if it was factory installed, the filler itself was produced in the 3d or 4thQ of 1941. That would be the pre-transition period and it implies that Parker was anticipating to a ruling that may have been in the pipeline but certainly not adopted yet in late 1941. So I think that chances are higher that the plastic filler in your pen is a replacement rather than a 1941 original.

[Parker51]

I suggest you take a look at the repair manuals that cover that period. 
It is my understanding that single and double jeweled end Vacumatics were at one time contemporaneously produced.

Also, given a basic knowledge of engineering lead times I can assure you the plastic Vacumatic filler unit was not designed and produced instantaneously or nearly so. 
If someone else has details as far as when it’s design, testing and initial production period occurred, it would be helpful.

I suspect that it was actually designed well before the metal shortage which prompted its adaptation occurred. There might have been concerns about its reliability, specifically of plastic as a structural moving part, something I believe was a relatively new use of plastic, but I suspect the primary reason for the use of the speed line filler was cost. Basically unless a replacement parts cost is cheaper to produce you don’t replace it unless you have competitive reasons to do so until either your production costs increase or your tooling wears out. The speed line filler was in production for such a short run that I expect it’s tooling to have been in good shape, but with an increase in material cost and possibly a notice of some materials no longer being available, a decision was made to switch to the plastic filler unit.

I cite as a comparison and contrast the production of automobiles during the same period. 

Due to material shortages initially automobiles while continuing to be produced were so with model detail changes reflecting this. Production stopped however not due to a material shortage, rather due to Presidential Executive Order and not all production but all civilian production. 
And when the war ended, production resumed using the same tooling and designs from that earlier period for despite it being several years later, the tooling had been saved.

If the speed line filler was a superior product in comparison to the plastic filler, the tooling for it would have been preserved and once materials were available production of it would have resumed. This didn’t happen. 
 

So what does it mean for the pen you are writing about, it means unless there is proof that the filler unit was replaced, something possible but not guaranteed by it having a plastic filler unit during a time period during which it is possible their was early production of said filler unit then it may well all be original. Also, do not discount that the barrel may have been produced and marked with the earlier date of production and used in a pen produced later. I have evidence that at certain points Parker either produced an earlier version of a pen and sold it later, or produced a large amount of a pen and sold it in later years when it was out of production. 
Basically, even before the war they didn’t destroy perfectly good pens, nor pen parts to match a model year designation. 

[FarmBoy]

Late 1941 pens show up with some regularity having the 'plastic' filler mechanism.  Likewise, Speedline fillers are found in early 1942 pens.  Pens that are wild found and clear that no one has messed with them.  I'd not worry about it.

I've seen no evidence that Parker labored over a replacement design for the filler and indications are that the design change happened fairly quickly with a transition period of 'put in any filler we have' to make and sell pens.

 

There is also evidence that the Speedline filler was available much earlier than previously thought.  Perhaps it is time to update that article on Vacumatic Filler mechanisms from a few years ago.

[bunnspecial]

58 minutes ago, FarmBoy said:

Late 1941 pens show up with some regularity having the 'plastic' filler mechanism.  Likewise, Speedline fillers are found in early 1942 pens.  Pens that are wild found and clear that no one has messed with them.  I'd not worry about it.

I've seen no evidence that Parker labored over a replacement design for the filler and indications are that the design change happened fairly quickly with a transition period of 'put in any filler we have' to make and sell pens.

 

There is also evidence that the Speedline filler was available much earlier than previously thought.  Perhaps it is time to update that article on Vacumatic Filler mechanisms from a few years ago.

 

Thanks. I know in a more general sense, when a part changes it's not uncommon to find something with mismatched parts right around the time of the change.

 

I'll assume this is original unless I see reason to think otherwise...

 

 

[joss]

I happily abide to Farmboy's knowledge in this matter. Only someone that has seen a substantial amount of Vacs can judge whether an anecdotal observation might be something of significance.

 

I tried to find the patent for the Parker plastic Vac filler but only found patent US2343991 (filed August 1942) which seems to differ from the plastic filler that we know.