allgemeine Information on Counterfeits
Home |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
the collector's website and community for writing instrument collectors
Original and copy, side by side — with photographs
The comparison reports below are also available as web pages: same photographs, readable without a download and searchable.
- How do you recognise a fake of the Montblanc Writers Edition F. Scott Fitzgerald? 8 photos
- How do you tell an original Montblanc StarWalker Resin from a copy? 8 photos
- Which features give away a fake Montblanc Solitaire with guilloché decoration? 6 photos
- How do you recognise a copy of a black Montblanc Meisterstück rollerball? 5 photos
- How do you spot a fake Montblanc Bohème ballpoint? 8 photos
- How do you recognise a copy of a Montblanc Sienna leather case for two pens? 3 photos
Original and fake, compared photo by photo
Six fully illustrated comparisons from the fountainpen.de archive. Each report shows original and copy side by side.
From the fountainpen.de archive
Identifying features of a Bohème counterfeit
Among the known Bohème counterfeits, the ballpoint pen copy is one of the best made. In the overall view from above and from the side the difference from the original is barely recognisable to a layman, and even when disassembled the identification remains difficult; a first clear indication there is a coil spring at the refill.
The distinction becomes reliable only in the details. The cap star of the original has rounded star points, that of the copy angular ones. At the transition from the logo to the metal part the original finishes cleanly, whereas on the copy a distinct projection of the logo remains. On the three rings bearing the Bohème lettering, the lettering of the copy is executed in hatching, and the middle ring is markedly wider in relation to the two outer ones.
Most conspicuous is the decorative stone in the clip: the original carries a round-cut stone, the copy a straight, plain cut that appears flat. The clip itself is, on the copy, a bent sheet metal clip and shows a different contour from every angle than the stamped clip of the original. None of these features can be recognised in the usual sales photographs from internet auctions; they can only be checked on the instrument itself or on detailed photographs expressly requested.
Source: Comparison report, original versus fake · Original issue as PDF › · Photo comparison, original versus fake ›
From the fountainpen.de archive
Typical features of counterfeit Meisterstück pens
Counterfeit Meisterstück pens usually give themselves away in several places at once. The material is a first indication: originals are made of precious resin, a plastic of the Plexiglas type, whereas many copies are made of coated metal, which alters the weight and the feel in the hand. The inferior workmanship is noticeable as soon as the pen is picked up.
The colouring is the second criterion. Precious resin Meisterstück pens are available in black and in bordeaux; green, blue or grey marbled versions date from the 1940s. Ballpoint pens in green, yellow or white are not offered, and the combination of a coloured barrel with a large black cap, popular among counterfeits, is not part of the range. The rings are also helpful: on copies the spaces between the rings are frequently finished in black. On the 144 the ring at the front of the section is often a great deal wider than on the original.
The nib is the most telling feature. Original nibs are made of 14- or 18-carat gold and bear the Montblanc logo, the gold designation and the number 4810; steel nibs were used only in wartime. Counterfeits, by contrast, mostly show the engraving Iridium Point with an addition such as Germany or Paris. On the original two-tone nib the yellow gold lies on the outside with a light platinum inlay in the centre; on the copies this arrangement is reversed. Black writing instruments remain the most difficult of all to assess.
Source: Newsletter 1, March 2004 · Original issue as PDF ›