Fake Sonnets?

I've seen a lot of "Parker Sonnets" on E-Bay lately that look a little
different than the last model of Sonnets. I've picked up several for $20 a
piece. The stripping is more horizontal and less marble looking. Many of
them are being sold from vendors in Hong Kong. I've been assuming that
these were replicas but now I've seen some very large vendors selling them
and, when questioned, they say they got them straight from Parker.

Anyone know if these are real, maybe earlier versions or something?

(I'd post a picture but I can't seem to do that in this newsgroup)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:59:31 -0400, "Jack Harrell"
wrote:

these were replicas but now I've seen some very large vendors selling them
and, when questioned, they say they got them straight from Parker.

Let me guess. The vendor was in New York. There is one that sells
lots of Parker ripoffs.
--
siDetRaked
since 1938
sidetraked(at)bluebottle(dot)com

Dear Jack,

Antonios Zavaliangos wrote a detailed study of fake Sonnets which we
thought was so informative we got his permission to edit and post on
PenHero.com. The article gives good and photographic details on what
to look for and compares one of the fakes with a real Sonnet, side by
side, point by point.

The article can be found he

http://www.PenHero.com/PenGallery/Pa...nnetClones.htm

I personally like the Sonnet, and find it a worthy successor to the
many great Parker pens. The clones are interesting, but they are
quite good, and will fool people.

Cheers,

Jim Mamoulides
http://www.PenHero.com



"Jack Harrell" wrote in message ...
I've seen a lot of "Parker Sonnets" on E-Bay lately that look a little
different than the last model of Sonnets. I've picked up several for $20 a
piece. The stripping is more horizontal and less marble looking. Many of
them are being sold from vendors in Hong Kong. I've been assuming that
these were replicas but now I've seen some very large vendors selling them
and, when questioned, they say they got them straight from Parker.

Anyone know if these are real, maybe earlier versions or something?

(I'd post a picture but I can't seem to do that in this newsgroup)

Jack Harrell wrote:
I've seen a lot of "Parker Sonnets" on E-Bay lately that look a little
different than the last model of Sonnets. I've picked up several for $20 a
piece. The stripping is more horizontal and less marble looking. Many of
them are being sold from vendors in Hong Kong. I've been assuming that
these were replicas but now I've seen some very large vendors selling them
and, when questioned, they say they got them straight from Parker.

Anyone know if these are real, maybe earlier versions or something?

(I'd post a picture but I can't seem to do that in this newsgroup)


I see that you succeeded, Jack, but please don't. Many of us are using
telephone modems (my connection, if things go well, is 28.8K) and your
7817-line post takes many minutes. My browser was frozen on "Downloading
1 of 19" so long that I thought something was wrong with it.

Netiquette seems to involve posting your graphics somewhere else, and
publishing only a link here. The long-time regulars can clarify this policy.

And the Parker 51 graphic in elakeway's "Test Post" is another waste.
Get 'em OUT OF HERE, guys!



--
--John
Registered Linux User #291592

Jack Harrell wrote:
I've seen a lot of "Parker Sonnets" on E-Bay lately that look a little
different than the last model of Sonnets. I've picked up several for $20 a
piece. The stripping is more horizontal and less marble looking. Many of
them are being sold from vendors in Hong Kong. I've been assuming that
these were replicas but now I've seen some very large vendors selling them
and, when questioned, they say they got them straight from Parker.

Anyone know if these are real, maybe earlier versions or something?

(I'd post a picture but I can't seem to do that in this newsgroup)


I see that you succeeded, Jack, but please don't. Many of us are using
telephone modems (my connection, if things go well, is 28.8K) and your
7817-line post takes many minutes. My browser was frozen on "Downloading
1 of 19" so long that I thought something was wrong with it.

Netiquette seems to involve posting your graphics somewhere else, and
publishing only a link here. The long-time regulars can clarify this policy.

And the Parker 51 graphic in elakeway's "Test Post" is another waste.
Get 'em OUT OF HERE, guys!



--
--John
Registered Linux User #291592

John B. Egger wrote:


Netiquette seems to involve posting your graphics somewhere else, and
publishing only a link here. The long-time regulars can clarify this policy.


I certainly don't qualify as a long-time regular, but there's a group at

alt.collecting.pens-pencils.binaries

that obviously is meant to serve just this purpose. People with
pictures, please post your pictures there, and leave a plain text notice
here, so that only those who want the pictures get them.

David

"Jack Harrell" writes:

"Jack Harrell" wrote in message
.. .
I've seen a lot of "Parker Sonnets" on E-Bay lately that look a
little different than the last model of Sonnets. I've picked up
several for $20 a piece. The stripping is more horizontal and less
marble looking. Many of them are being sold from vendors in Hong
Kong. I've been assuming that these were replicas but now I've
seen some very large vendors selling them and, when questioned,
they say they got them straight from Parker.

Anyone know if these are real, maybe earlier versions or something?

(I'd post a picture but I can't seem to do that in this newsgroup)

Attach 'em?

NO! This is not a binary newsgroup, so please do not post pictures
here. The best thing to do is to put the pictures on a Web site and
post the URL to the pictures here.

Also, please don't top post. It is hard to read and makes it
necessary to waste time fixing posts so that they read logically.

Oh, blunder me! I forgot that these messages are downloaded into your News
Handler. Sorry folks, I just posted another image. Won't happen again. I
promise.
--
Best regards,
Free Citizen
http://www.freewebs.com/fpnet/

"John B. Egger" wrote in message
...

[snip]

I see that you succeeded, Jack, but please don't. Many of us are using
telephone modems (my connection, if things go well, is 28.8K) and your
7817-line post takes many minutes. My browser was frozen on "Downloading
1 of 19" so long that I thought something was wrong with it.

Netiquette seems to involve posting your graphics somewhere else, and
publishing only a link here. The long-time regulars can clarify this
policy.

And the Parker 51 graphic in elakeway's "Test Post" is another waste.
Get 'em OUT OF HERE, guys!



--
--John
Registered Linux User #291592

Sorry, but what is 'top post'?
--
Best regards,
Free Citizen
http://www.freewebs.com/fpnet/

"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
"Jack Harrell" writes:

"Jack Harrell" wrote in message
.. .
I've seen a lot of "Parker Sonnets" on E-Bay lately that look a
little different than the last model of Sonnets. I've picked up
several for $20 a piece. The stripping is more horizontal and less
marble looking. Many of them are being sold from vendors in Hong
Kong. I've been assuming that these were replicas but now I've
seen some very large vendors selling them and, when questioned,
they say they got them straight from Parker.

Anyone know if these are real, maybe earlier versions or something?

(I'd post a picture but I can't seem to do that in this newsgroup)

Attach 'em?

NO! This is not a binary newsgroup, so please do not post pictures
here. The best thing to do is to put the pictures on a Web site and
post the URL to the pictures here.

Also, please don't top post. It is hard to read and makes it
necessary to waste time fixing posts so that they read logically.

Free Citizen wrote:
Sorry, but what is 'top post'?

Putting your response at the top of a reply is top posting.
Putting your response below the message you're replying to
is bottom posting. This response is an example of bottom
posting.

Bottom posting is still the netiquette standard because
conversations are easier to follow. Another standard is to
cut out the chaff that is irrelevant to your response.

Because of software that breaks these conventions and
people's laziness, these standards are falling by the
wayside. Years ago, anyone who top posted to a newsgroup
would be flamed and/or kill-filed for being inconsiderate
(for making it difficult to follow a conversation/thread)
and wasting bandwidth (for not deleting the irrelevant parts
before posting).

Personally, I see it as a matter of courtesy. Since I'm
posting, it's my responsibility to make it easy for the
reader to follow my points. This is done by placing my
response below the earlier post, or by interleaving it
within a larger earlier post. Deleting the irrelevant parts
of an earlier post is part of making it easier for readers
to follow. For me, it's impolite to expect the reader to
work to follow a thread, and that's what top posting does.

HTH,
Mark Z.