|
By Bill Riepl Sometimes, what you actually get might not be what you see... Looking at the pictures here, you might be forgiven for assuming that what you are seeing are a couple of classic American fountain pens, the Parker Vacumatic and the Sheaffer TM touchdown. Instead, what you are seeing is the application of clever marketing on the part of a couple of little known 1950s pen makers from the far east. Or outright counterfeiting, depending upon how hard minded you tend to be about that sort of thing! The pens are not marked as being either a Vacumatic of a Sheaffer, but aside from the markings, almost every detail is exactly true to the pens that were their "inspiration".
As you can see from the picture to teh right, there's no way that this pen would be confused with a Parker Vacumatic. On the other hand, there are a lot of similarities between the two!
Exploring the filling mechanism reveals another huge difference between this pen and a Vacumatic. Instead of a plunger under a blind cap at the barrel end, you find that the entire barrel unscrews, revealing... A copy of Parker's Aerometric system...
With this example, as cheaply made as it might have been, it was still in perfect working order when I got the pen. So, here we have a Vacumatic clone, with a Sheaffer style nib, and a 51 style filling mechanism. Interesting! Looked at in it's role as a writer, the Skater pen is a bit disappointing. The nib is rigid, and a bit scratchy on the paper. The Aerometric filling system was in good shape, and works perfectly, as you would expect from this durable, simple design. It's a smaller pen than I would normally like, and this alone would be enough to keep it out of my pocket. Given it's poor nib, and the fact that it's really more of a curiosity piece than anything else, this one spends it's time on display rather than in use.
In shape and style, the nib is an exact duplicate of the Sheaffer Triumph nib, and is also marked "Lucky" with the same two characters as on the barrel. The section, although shaped as a Sheaffer section would be, is made of a transparent plastic, allowing you see the ink flowing down into the feed.
Given that I never really intended to use this pen a lot, I haven't bothered with replacing the sac. When dipped however, the nib proves to be surprisingly smooth. No flex at all, but the tipping seems very well made, and the nib almost glides across the paper with a fairly dry, fine line. I was very surprised at how well this pen performed all in all. It's a smooth pleasant writer, and seems to be very well made. While still not an "expensive" pen, it is clearly several notches above the Opalette in quality. Neither of these pens is what you would be able to call "high end". Construction is good enough, notably better on the Lucky, but both are obviously meant to be marketed towards the everyday user. Production is probably from the late 1940s through the 1950s. It would seem that during this time, the possession of a Parker or Sheaffer pen was seen as being "above the average", hence the design of these pens. Since each is clearly imprinted with the maker's name as well as a model name, I wouldn't refer to these two pens as "counterfeit". Unlike the S.T. Dupont counterfeits covered elsewhere in this issue, these pens do have an identity in their own right. They are definitely designed to imitate the style and design of other manufacturer's pens, but I think they stop just short of the line between legitimate and outright counterfeit. Although neither is exactly what you would call a valuable pen, they make interesting examples of marketing from years past. The Skater pen rests in my display case along with my small collection of Gold Pearl Vacumatics, and the Lucky alongside the few Sheaffers of this design I have. copyright 2005 William Riepl Images copyright 2005 William Riepl
|