Two Weeks with the New Parker 51
I’ve mentioned before that I own very few vintage pens. It’s not that I don’t appreciate them, but if a pen has managed to survive intact for 80 years, I don’t want to be the one to break it. I do appreciate that certain vintage pen models were particularly popular, which is why I always keep an eye out for retro styled rereleases of pens. The latest of these - with some amount of controversy regarding its design tweaks - is the 2021 model Parker 51. I’ve had this pen in hand for last two weeks and I’d like to share my impressions so far.
Right up front I want to be clear about two things. One, this pen is my first experience with any Parker 51 from any year. I say this to make clear the second thing, that I set out to evaluate this pen on its own merits, not in comparison to the original Parker 51 or with the other pens from various Chinese brands which were inspired by the Parker 51. The original pens are ubiquitous on eBay and at pen shows. If what you want is an original Parker 51 as it was made in the 1940s, or as it was made in the 1960s, etc., then skip this pen and go buy a vintage model.
I say this because the internet has been awash in “hot takes” for months from people who are unhappy about the fact that this pen isn’t the same as the old Parker 51. The nib is different, the filling system is different, the capping mechanism is different, etc. Just as with any reboot these days, a vocal corner of the internet have been calling this pen a failure since long before any of them even experienced it. There have been accusations of cheap materials and nibs, of the pen being a rebranded Jinhao, etc. I bring this all up right now to dispel it a bit. This pen is not a rebranded Jinhao, it is manufactured by Parker in France. The barrel material is referred to by Parker as “precious resin” and I’ll speak a bit more on that later, but suffice it to say that plastic resin barrels are a mainstay of pens at all different price ranges. The nib of the new 51 appears to be identical to the nib on the 2018 release of the less expensive Parker Jotter fountain pen, true. But many brands reuse nibs among pens priced at different points in their line-up, such as Lamy, or Kaweco. What matters about a nib isn’t whether a cheaper pen also has that same nib, it’s how the nib performs, which we’ll get to.
But let’s start first by examining what you get when your pen arrives. The outermost layer of packaging is a white cardboard sleeve with manufacturing information printed on it, as well as the nib choice and color of the pen inside. Under this we find a grey clamshell box, which features the pen, a proprietary Parker cartridge, and nothing else. This pen is a cartridge/converter filler, and Parker uses proprietary cartridges and converters. The listing when I bought this pen made clear that it did not come with a converter, but honestly that didn’t even register to me; in the back of my mind I just always kind of assume that a pen of this price range comes with a converter. Luckily I had a converter in my order Frontier that I was able to swap over, but it was my first sign that this pen was maybe a little less than it should be at the price that Parker is asking. The complete lack of any literature, warranty information, or even filling instructions also stuck me. On the Parker page that I linked above there is a nice little history of the Parker 51 model, but none of that is included with the pen. There is a link to register your pen and extend its warranty, but there’s no way to know that exists unless you happen to Google it. I compare this with the Monteverde Ritma, a less expensive pen mind you, which swapped out Monteverde’s usual clamshell box for a cheaper looking plastic box, but also managed to include an inexpensive converter asking with the pen. I wish Parker had skimped on the packaging here, and included more inside of it instead. I do realize that there are other brands which choose not to include their proprietary converters with their pens (such as Lamy, Platinum, Sheaffer, etc.) but those brands also offer their ink cartridges in more colors than just black and blue.
The pen itself has an unsurprising feel to it. It’s lightweight, and the materials feel fine, if unremarkable. I personally found the pen to be a bit too short to write with unposted, but I think most people be fine to choose either option. The cap posts deeply on the back of the pen, but not particularly firmly, which is another disappointment with this pen. In my two weeks of writing with this pen I never had an issue with the cap falling off the back, but I never got over the feeling that it might.
Another feeling I had to adjust to with this pen was the fact that the nib is essentially “below” the tip of the hood, so when aiming for the page I was contacting it lower than I expected, more like a ballpoint than a fountain pen. This isn’t necessarily a negative, and for people used to other fountain pen models that hit the page like this it may nit be noticeable at all. But for me, I found it to be different from the other hooded nib pens I own, such as the Lamy 2000, enough so that it was worth noting.
I mentioned before that I wanted to review this pen on its own merit, not just in comparison to the original Parker 51, but I do think it’s worth looking at how it stacks up to some older Parker models physically. I took some pictures of this pen alongside a vintage Parker 45 and a more recent Parker Frontier. As you can see, this new Parker 51 is similar in size to these legacy models. In some ways, this could be seen as an answer to Joe’s concerns last August at the Gentleman Stationer, that too many pens are being released too large these days, and there is a lack of options for people who don’t want an oversized pen. We can also take a peek at the vintage squeeze converter in the Parker 45. I personally am not a fan of any “squeeze-based” filling mechanism, so I’m perfectly happy with the twist piston converter.
I said that the materials of the pen were unimpressive when I first picked them up, but that’s not to say that they aren’t of a decent quality, fit, and finish. The cap, for example, has a nice brushed look to it, with a classic styled “jewel” shape at the finial, and an updated version of the Parker arrow clip. The resin of the section and barrel I initially wrote off as plain and uninteresting, until I caught it in the right light. After first catching a hint of translucency through the hod while writing, I decided to test the barrel on my camera”s flash, and I found I could see through the threads, and even got a bit of glowing at the far end of the barrel. The term “precious resin” is often made fun of, and rightfully so, but whatever material this pen is made of, it seems to behave similarly to the materials found in other high-end plastic pens.
The ring on the section, and the twist capping mechanism, has gotten a lot of flack online. If I never knew that the original 51 had a clutch ring for a slip cap in this spot I might find it a bit odd to have a secret trim ring under the cap, but it’s a nice minimal look, it integrates seamlessly into the barrel threads, and the cap threads themselves catch and hold securely. I do find hooded nibs to be better suited to slip caps, because it allows you to switch between capped and uncapped quicker, but the twist cap here is a perfectly serviceable option.
The nib section, aesthetically, is pretty striking. Looking down while writing, the nib barely peeks out from the hood. Looking at the underside of the nib, we can see just a hint of its rim, as well as the tipping size imprinted on the feed. As far as I have been able to tell, the nib section is sealed, probably glued shut. This means that one cannot take out and swap the nib, or even just disassemble it for a more thorough cleaning. For most people this probably won’t make a difference, but for some people I could see this rising to the level of a dealbreaker. It is particularly unfortunate, to my mind, because the fact that the recent Parker Jotter release appears to use the same nibs and feeds would have meant that it would be very easy to source replacement nibs to swap into these pen, and to have options for different tipping sizes and even different grinds.
Alright, all of that is well and good, but how does the nib write? The short answer is, pretty well. I was wary of cleaning the sealed hooded section to I loaded up the pen with some nice and safe Waterman Serenity Blue, and I found the medium nib to write smoothly with a very even flow. For the first week I used only this pen exclusively, and while I allowed myself to use whatever pen I liked during the second week, I found myself reaching back for this Parker time and again. for all of its flaws, it puts ink on paper very nicely.
Ultimately, I think that biggest factor for this pen is its price. For what it is, and for what you get when you buy it, I feel it is simply priced too high. With an MSRP of $109.00, and a common street price of $87.20, I really would like to see a little more out of this pen. The posting should feel firm so that you aren’t left to worry about the cap falling off. There should be a converter included in the box, as well as a warranty card and even a little info about the original 51. The section should be able to be dismantled for cleaning and swapping of nibs. These are all faults that I’d have an easier time over looking with a $20 or $30 pen, like the Parker Jotter. Maybe even with a $50 pen I could see past these things, but for a $100 pen I think it’s a bit much. If you come across this pen on a decent sale, or if some of the aspects that I’ve described here are enough for you to overlook the faults, I do think that writing with this pen is a very enjoyable experience. I may keep an eye out of any limited edition colors come out with this steel nib in the future, but I can’t imagine the $300 gold nib version feeling worth the asking price.
This pen was purchased from Atlas Stationers at retail price.
