I've complained before about all the undisclosed flaws that one ends up finding after the fact -- not just with pens and pencils from flea markets, general antiques dealers, and eBay, but also from regular exhibitors at established pen shows.
This morning I pick up my customized 51 mentioned in my November post and I realize the cap jewel is missing. A closer look, and it is clear that the clip bushing is a mess, and that the jewel's top had been twisted off its stem and then glued back in place. The glue had failed, and the jewel's top fallen off. On vintage pens, one runs across such makeshift repairs pretty often. Usually there's no way to know when they were done, since one doesn't normally remove the jewel unless the clip needs to be replaced or tightened. In this case, however, the cap was newly-made, fitted out by the maker with vintage clutch, inner cap, clip, clip bushing, and jewel. So the use of worn-out and broken parts was deliberate, and especially outrageous given that the maker also does a considerable side business in selling reproduction 51 jewels!
I mentioned my dissatisfaction with the workmanship to a friend and veteran collector who is very keen on this maker's customized pens. Interestingly enough, he was more or less dismissive -- a response I've seen among other collectors who find it hard to believe something so attractive externally could be hiding so many problems beneath the surface. Those who work on pens don't find it hard to believe, though -- but it may take another workman to know and appreciate bad work, whether it is in pens, building, auto repair, or medicine, for that matter.
This afternoon I will replace the bushing and the jewel. Once that is done, I will have replaced or modified every component of the pen save for the clip, the inner cap and the clutch.
Showing posts with label custom pens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label custom pens. Show all posts
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Customized pens and manufacturer lawsuits
If you buy a car and customize it, that's OK. If you buy a name-brand shirt and customize it with transfers or embroidery, that's OK, too. It's also OK to resell what you've customized -- though of course it would be wrong if you misrepresented what you added to the product as being anything but your own work.
Some manufacturers, however, don't see it that way. They don't want anyone altering their products, and are willing to use the threat of ruination through litigation to get their way -- right or wrong.
That, at least, was the story making the rounds at the recent Columbus pen show, with continuing discussion since online. Montblanc has apparently filed a lawsuit against Roger Cromwell, a California pen seller and repairman, over his online listing of a current-production Montblanc pen customized in South America with a fancy metal overlay. I don't know all the details, but it seems to me that if the online description failed to give sufficient emphasis to the fact that the decoration of the pen was neither by Montblanc nor Montblanc-authorized, a simple warning letter would have sufficed. It's also strange that I've heard nothing of any legal action being pursued against the company actually doing the customization (their identity has always been quite public) or against anyone else selling their pens. As is, it looks very much like a little guy is being made an example of -- not the best thing for Montblanc's corporate image.
UPDATE: Much more detail in the discussion over at Fountain Pen Network; the discussion actually began first at Pentrace, but may no longer be accessible there due to the archive-less nature of the site.
Here's a press release from 2005 about the dismissal of a suit brought in 2001 by Montblanc against Aurora over alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution claims regarding Aurora's use of caps with three bands -- a trademark claimed by Montblanc, but with a long, long history of prior use by other penmakers around the world.
UPDATE: The lawsuit has been settled; the judgment document can be seen here. From what I hear, Montblanc was not happy with all the bad publicity coming out of its hardball tactics in this case. The defendant is still out substantial legal costs, but reports are that the damages to be paid to settle will be token.
Some manufacturers, however, don't see it that way. They don't want anyone altering their products, and are willing to use the threat of ruination through litigation to get their way -- right or wrong.
That, at least, was the story making the rounds at the recent Columbus pen show, with continuing discussion since online. Montblanc has apparently filed a lawsuit against Roger Cromwell, a California pen seller and repairman, over his online listing of a current-production Montblanc pen customized in South America with a fancy metal overlay. I don't know all the details, but it seems to me that if the online description failed to give sufficient emphasis to the fact that the decoration of the pen was neither by Montblanc nor Montblanc-authorized, a simple warning letter would have sufficed. It's also strange that I've heard nothing of any legal action being pursued against the company actually doing the customization (their identity has always been quite public) or against anyone else selling their pens. As is, it looks very much like a little guy is being made an example of -- not the best thing for Montblanc's corporate image.
UPDATE: Much more detail in the discussion over at Fountain Pen Network; the discussion actually began first at Pentrace, but may no longer be accessible there due to the archive-less nature of the site.
Here's a press release from 2005 about the dismissal of a suit brought in 2001 by Montblanc against Aurora over alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution claims regarding Aurora's use of caps with three bands -- a trademark claimed by Montblanc, but with a long, long history of prior use by other penmakers around the world.
UPDATE: The lawsuit has been settled; the judgment document can be seen here. From what I hear, Montblanc was not happy with all the bad publicity coming out of its hardball tactics in this case. The defendant is still out substantial legal costs, but reports are that the damages to be paid to settle will be token.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)