Return to Platinum


Maker: Platinum.

I don’t have a great deal of background on this model, for lack of resources.  It is one of the “long/short” pattern, which Platinum calls a “Pocket-type”, that had a vogue for yet-to-be explained reasons in Japan in the 1960s and ’70s.  This model lay toward the bottom of Platinum’s range of gold-pointed pens.

In writing, there is a lot of possible variation with these pens, as the points are available in both firm and “soft” grades.  Something that Platinum deserves praise for is in resisting the urge to mess around with their cartridge pattern; modern production cartridges will fit these pens, which is not true of similarly-shaped models offered by Pilot.  The clip is also laudable, a solid sprung object that should be fairly gentle to the fabric of pockets.

Something I’m not so fond of in this pen is the extremely light metal cap; they seem flimsy, and the finish on them is definitely easy to damage.

Production Run: 1964 – c. 1975; the start is taken from the company’s own history, the end is more in the line of a slightly informed guess.

Cost When New: ¥2000, which in 1964 was about $5.50.  This is the same price in a catalogue I’ve seen described as from “the seventies” (but by the contents may be from as early as 1967)– not quite $7.00 in 1975 (for modern value, try this calculator).  Given Japan’s long tradition of supporting domestic producers on the backs of export markets, these prices likely don’t represent those to be found by a buyer outside Japan.

Size: 11.8 cm long capped, 14.9 cm posted, 10.1 cm uncapped.

Point: 18K gold.

Body: Plastic.

Filler: Proprietary cartridge, capacity approx. 1.2 ml; the modern converter will not fit.

Platinum PKB-2000, laid out to its full length. In some examples, the widow’s peak semi-hooded arrangement is absent; this may reflect a difference in time or location of production.

PKB-2000 curled up and ready to lie in a shallow pocket. There’s something about the clip that strongly suggests Japanese aesthetics to me, but I can’t articulate why.



If you are relying on the preceding information to win a bet or impress a teacher, you should read the site’s scholarly caveat. Remember, this is the internet, and it’s full of bad information.

Permanent link to this article: