Sunday, June 3, 2012

When is a Duofold not a Duofold?

They aren't common, but Parker did make Duofolds that didn't bear the Duofold name (we discussed another in our post on the Chicago pen show auction). This example bears the imprint "WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE 1937", so it is likely that it was not sold through normal retail channels.

It came from a parts lot and its condition is, frankly, terrible. No clip, broken barrel, cracks in the cap -- but unusual enough to be worth documenting.

While in most respects it is a standard Duofold Senior Deluxe, it lacks the expected Duofold imprint, instead bearing a generic Parker imprint with a date code indicating production in the first quarter of 1935.

The nib is also not a Duofold nib, though it is of the same size. Instead, it is a #7 Lucky Curve -- the usual nib found on these uncommon non-Duofold Duofolds. The feed is a comb feed, of the type factory-fitted to later-production Duofolds.
ADDENDA: In the picture of the barrel imprint above, one can just see a "ghost imprint" at the top of the image -- traces of what appears to have been a standard Duofold imprint, polished away.

Parker continued to provide unusual variants to the Wisconsin Legislature into the 1940s, with examples noted in Facebook posts here and here.

No comments: