Copying

[Deb]

In that other thread – yes, that one over there – there seems to be a bit of animus developing about Chinese pens. There may be good reasons for that, I don't know. The bit that interests me is the suggestion that some of their pens are "knock-offs" and therefore ethically dubious. It's undoubtedly true that some Chinese pens are copies of others such as the Parker 51 or the Lamy Safari. We're not talking about counterfeit here, just pens that are very like others, even extremely so. Is that ethically wrong?

Perhaps it is, but if it is, so was much of the history of fountain pen production. The earliest fountain pens all looked rather alike because they were emulating dip pens but copying really got off to a good start with the Parker Duofold. Following rapidly on its success Sheaffer and Wahl Eversharp produced distinctly similar pens. Some of the smaller pen makers like Swell, for instance, produced pens that could easily be mistaken for Duofolds. Across the Atlantic Macniven and Cameron turned out a lapis lazuli pen that, though it was a lever filler with Macniven and Cameron's leaf-shaped nib, was otherwise very similar to the Duofold, even to having a dummy blind cap.

Every pen that broke new ground and was successful had copies made, sooner or later. It took a few years but Conklin pens, like the Chicago, had a clear debt to the Sheaffer Balance. Wahl Eversharp's Doric gave rise to the Omas Extra and the Parker Vacumatic to the Omas Extra Lucens and a 1930s Unic from France. The Wahl Eversharp Skyline was widely copied, including the Skoda from Czechoslovakia and the Selsdon from England.

Filling systems were copied too. Sheaffer's Vacuum-Fill is De La Rue Onoto's plunger filler reprised. The Parker 61 broke new ground with the capillary filling system except that Pilot did it first in the 1930s.

That, I promise you, is a tiny fraction of the copying that went on in the development of the fountain pen, so the Chinese are neither the first nor the worst. Of course, copying isn't restricted to fountain pens, but has applied to motor cars and motorbikes, aircraft and power tools. Emulation, where does not breach patents, is a healthy thing and it is part of the process of design development. After a century of copying, it just isn't right to suggest that it's suddenly unethical when the Chinese do it!

[Vespagirl]

In that other thread – yes, that one over there – there seems to be a bit of animus developing about Chinese pens. There may be good reasons for that, I don't know. The bit that interests me is the suggestion that some of their pens are "knock-offs" and therefore ethically dubious. It's undoubtedly true that some Chinese pens are copies of others such as the Parker 51 or the Lamy Safari. We're not talking about counterfeit here, just pens that are very like others, even extremely so. Is that ethically wrong?

Perhaps it is, but if it is, so was much of the history of fountain pen production. The earliest fountain pens all looked rather alike because they were emulating dip pens but copying really got off to a good start with the Parker Duofold. Following rapidly on its success Sheaffer and Wahl Eversharp produced distinctly similar pens. Some of the smaller pen makers like Swell, for instance, produced pens that could easily be mistaken for Duofolds. Across the Atlantic Macniven and Cameron turned out a lapis lazuli pen that, though it was a lever filler with Macniven and Cameron's leaf-shaped nib, was otherwise very similar to the Duofold, even to having a dummy blind cap.

Every pen that broke new ground and was successful had copies made, sooner or later. It took a few years but Conklin pens, like the Chicago, had a clear debt to the Sheaffer Balance. Wahl Eversharp's Doric gave rise to the Omas Extra and the Parker Vacumatic to the Omas Extra Lucens and a 1930s Unic from France. The Wahl Eversharp Skyline was widely copied, including the Skoda from Czechoslovakia and the Selsdon from England.

Filling systems were copied too. Sheaffer's Vacuum-Fill is De La Rue Onoto's plunger filler reprised. The Parker 61 broke new ground with the capillary filling system except that Pilot did it first in the 1930s.

That, I promise you, is a tiny fraction of the copying that went on in the development of the fountain pen, so the Chinese are neither the first nor the worst. Of course, copying isn't restricted to fountain pens, but has applied to motor cars and motorbikes, aircraft and power tools. Emulation, where does not breach patents, is a healthy thing and it is part of the process of design development. After a century of copying, it just isn't right to suggest that it's suddenly unethical when the Chinese do it!

Well said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dam]

You learn something every day. Reading this, I certainly have - thank you Deb for posting. I suppose reinterpreting someone else's design is common in every field. To copy a well-made thing which has had some commercial success is a smart strategy, especially if you can improve on the design, truly make it your own and offer the consumer something that is at least functional and a little different. The copies / knock-offs / "homages" that don't achieve this are quickly forgotten or end up being trashed because they weren't very well made - that was true in the thirties and it still is today.

I don't have anything per se against Chinese manufacturers. I do however find it a dubious practice when Lamy introduces one of their "limited edition" Safaris - what was it this year, Petrol? - and a few months later you see the exact same pen on ebay, sometimes advertised as a Lamy pen. It's not the same pen, not the same quality, but it passes as something it is not, for a tenth of the price. I do have a problem with that.

Your last paragraph is spot on. This practice of copying has been going on forever and I agree emulation is a positive thing. But is this really what is going on here?
The other thing that bothers me at least a little bit is the political and economic angle - which I won't get into!

[Deb]

I won't discuss the politics - that just leads to more trouble than I want to handle. However, that aside, you say " But is this really what is going on here?" I find that interesting. What else could it be?

[Sailor Kenshin]

I have no problem with Chinese manufacturers emulating any design. All the pens I have bought very, very clearly have the manufacturer stamped or printed on the pen: Hero, Jinhao, Baoer, and so on. They are not counterfeits, and someone had to design and engineer them.

[Deb]

I have no problem with Chinese manufacturers emulating any design. All the pens I have bought very, very clearly have the manufacturer stamped or printed on the pen: Hero, Jinhao, Baoer, and so on. They are not counterfeits, and someone had to design and engineer them.

Very well put.

[Deb]

Thank you, Vespagirl.

[dam]

I won't discuss the politics - that just leads to more trouble than I want to handle. However, that aside, you say " But is this really what is going on here?" I find that interesting. What else could it be?

My definition of emulate is this: to make something like another and... perhaps make it better. Hence competition, hence better, different designs.

Copying is something else: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Lamy-Safari-...J_baiMjR2-BptQ

Is this legit? I would not bet on it.

What about this?
https://www.ebay.ca/itm/Parker-Sonne...gAAOSwq~tZQX2u

And so on and so forth.

What are the odds these pens are manufactured by the same interests that manufacture the x450, the 5020 or the 388 (Jinhao, Hero, Baoer)?

What I was driving at is the fact that the makers of knock-offs and counterfeit items, in many cases, are sometimes one and the same. At least that is what it looks like to me.

[dam]

I have no problem with Chinese manufacturers emulating any design. All the pens I have bought very, very clearly have the manufacturer stamped or printed on the pen: Hero, Jinhao, Baoer, and so on. They are not counterfeits, and someone had to design and engineer them.

My experience is the same, regarding the brand name being stamped on the pens I buy. However, some people have had quite different experiences. Check out the many threads titled "Is my Safari fake?" or "Is this a real Sonnet?" on different sites.
As far as actual design and engineering efforts are concerned, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, as I often times do not see any effort to improve the designs in the least.

Side note: I don't know why these discussions so quickly turn into heated and acrimonious debates. These things are not cut and dry.
The fact is I personally have a problem when I see someone's work being more or less stolen or borrowed - which is not the same as emulation in my book. Whether it was done one hundred years ago or just yesterday is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. We do not have to agree. I'll leave it at that.

[Cob]

An excellent thread, this one, giving rise to some cogent points. As for Duofold copies, Wyvern & National Security spring to mind!

For myself I wish someone would copy some of the lovely rarer Mabie Todds of the 1930s - I mean exact copies including the fabulous nibs. I can say this because a) it isn't going to happen and b) if it did, I certainly should not be able to afford one!

Cob

[Deb]

dam, all I can say to you is that counterfeits are a different matter.

"What I was driving at is the fact that the makers of knock-offs and counterfeit items, in many cases, are sometimes one and the same. At least that is what it looks like to me. "

OK. Fair enough, but that's just your surmise. You have no proof for what you say.

I was talking about copying. If you want to talk about fakes, which is an entirely different matter, I suggest you start another thread.

[Deb]

An excellent thread, this one, giving rise to some cogent points. As for Duofold copies, Wyvern & National Security spring to mind!

For myself I wish someone would copy some of the lovely rarer Mabie Todds of the 1930s - I mean exact copies including the fabulous nibs. I can say this because a) it isn't going to happen and b) if it did, I certainly should not be able to afford one!

Cob

Me too!

[Jon Szanto]

I think one point could be fairly raised in the discussion, and that would be "copying at a low price point for the sake of overtaking a market".

One thing that is quite clear is that *some* of the Chinese pens are *so* close in design, feature and specific details that, had they chosen, one or two more tweaks and they could pass as the real thing - a counterfeit. They have stopped short of that, including branding, etc. The difference between this market ploy (Chinese vs. other) that differs from the historic copying that Deb has chronicled is in relation to the price differential. Those pens that Deb mentioned in the past must certainly have been pens that sold in similar price ranges, and while there might be visual and functional elements that were similar, there was no enormous advantage, one over the other.

I recently received a 4-pack of Wing Sung 3008, which is nothing more than a TWSBI 580 with a Lamy-style nib. I happen to have one of them sitting on a pen rest next to a TWSBI on my desk, and unless I pointedly pay attention it is difficult to tell which is which to pick up. As to the "Lamy-style" nib, it is not just close, but you can place a Lamy nib in there - I did a couple days ago - and it is a perfect fit. They knew exactly what they were doing.

What is the salient point in all this? The pen cost just a bit less than $3.25. About 20 times less than a TWSBI 580, or thereabouts. Hard to say about build quality, but it is reasonable. A visual examination makes one think they are comparable there, as well.

There are literally thousands of ways they could have made this pen to utilize it's well-designed functionality (it's a piston-filler, been around for decades) but changed up the visual design elements. They could have made the pen look *any* way they wanted to and have a good-writing, economical pen. They didn't. And while they didn't print TWSBI on the pen, and make even the tiniest details match, it seems pretty clear: they want to take away sales from the identical pen that costs 20 times more. There really can't be any other reasonable way to look at a pen this nearly-identical without acknowledging that. You'd have to willfully and blatantly ignore the similarity to avoid the fact that they aren't just making pens, they are making cloned pens with the intent to undercut another market.

How they are able to produce a very similar pen for around 20 times less is... another, and very complex, issue. I still feel it is worth examining, as I don't believe it is benign a situation as Deb has portrayed, and has historically been the case. And I love Deb, so I'm not just being cantakerous!

[Deb]

I love you too, Jon.

However, you are reading into what I said something that the history doesn't support. Many of the third tier copiers of the Duofold were producing poor quality pens at a low price to gain on the popularity of the Parker. It was their intention to make sales for themselves at Parker's loss, because people wanted a pen that looked like a Duofold but couldn't afford one. Sound familiar? I don't see any difference between what was happening in the USA in the twenties and thirties and what the Chinese manufacturers are doing now.

[Sailor Kenshin]

It's difficult to divine intention. And it's possible that people know the difference between the WS and TWSBI, but cannot afford a TWSBI.

Maybe they'd like to try something similar that they can afford. (A Lamy-style nib in a TWSBI, though...my head's spinning.)

Undercutting markets, I don't know. How many Safari pens does Lamy sell in China or India?

I bought and tested a lot of the Safariesque Chinese pens. They're fine for the price, and great for science experiments. I'm lucky enough to be able to afford multiple Safaris, but that's not always the case.

[Deb]

As an aside, I have one of those Wing Sung Safari lookalikes. Safaris don't work well for me - something to do with the length of the nib and the section is uncomfortable for me - but the Wing Sung works better.

[Jon Szanto]

It's difficult to divine intention. And it's possible that people know the difference between the WS and TWSBI, but cannot afford a TWSBI.

Maybe they'd like to try something similar that they can afford. (A Lamy-style nib in a TWSBI, though...my head's spinning.)

Undercutting markets, I don't know. How many Safari pens does Lamy sell in China or India?

I bought and tested a lot of the Safariesque Chinese pens. They're fine for the price, and great for science experiments. I'm lucky enough to be able to afford multiple Safaris, but that's not always the case.

Nothing you have said counters what I wrote. I think it is not possible to look at a pen that is made to be virtually identical and NOT be able to discern the motive. As to the regional markets you mention, I am specifically thinking of the marketing - through eBay, mostly, at this point - to markets that *are* serviced by the other brands. I'm in the US.

The bottom line is simple: they could easily, very easily, make a product that stands on its own in form and function. In many cases, they don't, they merely copy, nearly identically, and close enough to a forgery that it would only take adding/changing a couple details. If that is a conscious decision, it makes one interested in the motivation for that decision.

[Deb]

But they do make many pens that don't resemble anything else.

The motivation is simple enough. The factories want to make money, the Chinese government wants hard currency so they support those sales.

[Jon Szanto]

But they do make many pens that don't resemble anything else.

Indeed. I implicitly, if not explicitly, acknowledged that.

The motivation is simple enough. The factories want to make money, the Chinese government wants hard currency so they support those sales.

Oh, the motivation is quite clear. The method is what is under discussion.

I have a colleague who is from Shanghai. Spends part of the year there, still. Has an amazing watch collection, some remarkable pieces. "Tribute" watches, if you will. One of my favorites includes the very minimal line "MDAE IN SWITZERLAND".

[AzJon]

Ok, first and foremost, what needs to be kept in mind is that all of this comes down to our personal opinions, but opposing opinions are not personal attacks and ought not be treated as such. If someone says "I don't like coffee, it tastes like trash" that is an opinion based on that persons experience, not an attack on anyone that drinks or enjoys coffee, nor does it imply by extension, that they, too, are "trash" people.

With that in mind, lets get into some definitions for purpose of discussion. If you don't agree with these definitions, that's fine. Feel free to correct me.

Homage: a show or demonstration of respect or dedication to someone or something, sometimes by simple declaration but often by some more oblique reference, artistic or poetic. The term is often used in the arts for where one author or artist shows respect to another by allusion or imitation.

This is the least common application regarding this discussion, because very few pen companies straight up admit that they are using design elements from other pens to make their product.

Derivative: in art, a "derivative piece" is an expressive creation that includes major copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original.

This is where the vast majority of pens in this discussion fall.

Counterfeit: Made in exact imitation of something valuable or important with the intention to deceive or defraud.

This is a problem, but to a lesser extent regarding this discussion.

Ok, with all of that in mind, let's get into it. We see derivative works when comparing Montblanc, Sailor, and Pilot pens. For example, here we have a Montblanc 146 next to a Pilot Custom 98. Size notwithstanding, we can see very obvious parallels between the pens.



Gold bands at the clip and near the finial, one large gold band on the cap near the threads, and a black cigar-shaped body. The clips are different, and there is one thin band on the Pilot instead of two on the MB. This, more or less, is where the similarities end. The Pilot has a C/C system, a click-cap (though the Custom 74 has threads), and a gold band at the end of the section (not pictured). Top it all off with a gold Pilot nib. This pen is obviously a derivative work of the Montblanc (even moreso in the Custom 74), however, it has enough of it's own original and unique elements to be it's own distinct pen. This also applies to the Sailor 1911.

I, unfortunately, don't have pictures of a Safari or Jinhao 599, but the images are plentiful. The 599 uses an identical body design that is unique to the Safari and, other than the clip, is nearly identical to an untrained eye. Yes, it stamps the barrel with "JINHAO 599" (in a similar font to Lamy, I might add), but does that constitute an original difference that is sufficient? The 599 changed out the nib, the clip, and went to a standard cartridge instead of the Lamy proprietary one. Outside that, for all intents and purposes, and in my opinion, is giving a very heavy *nudge nudge wink wink* to buyers that you are getting something that is visually indistinguishable for the most part. This is a practice I, personally, find distasteful, to say the least.

If we look at the Hero 616, it is very much so copying the Parker 51. The difference? The parker 51 is no longer being made. I have no particular qualms with a manufacturer making (or remaking) similar models to pens that are no longer in production. Just like I don't have a problem, from a fashion standpoint, of companies recreating dress styles from the 50s (fairly popular these days in my part of the world). What I do ask, is that an effort to produce a quality product be emphasized. The cracking issue on the 992 (sailor derivative) is a non-starter for me. If a company is going to make a product, at least make en effort to create something worth buying.

Regarding counterfeits: We know they exist, we've known they exist, they represent a problem in industries far beyond the pen world, and really don't require a lot of discussion.

I want to reemphasize that is, again, not an attack on anyone that chooses to buy one of these copied pens. As a personal opinion that applies to myself only, low quality, mass produced, pens that are made of cheap plastics, are prone to cracking, and are designed to be visually deceiving goes against a core personal belief and reason as to why I use fountain pens.

Sorry for this fairly long response, but I think the issue deserves larger discussion and has many layers and nuances that can't and won't be fleshed out in a sentence or two.