Reserve

• Zebra F-701

  2008rubric score 1/6restored to the catalogue

  A historical entry: the model was rejected before the rubric gained its seventh criterion. Back then it lacked everything but one point — the maker publishes no launch date, the earliest catalogue trace is around 2008, no awards, no cultural footprint, no sales figures. The ALL METAL version from 2018 was eight years old against a twenty-five-year threshold.

  True, but does not score: The model returned to the catalogue on 12 August 2026 after the user-practice criterion was added. It is the only case where a rubric change restored a rejected entry — the two other models judged by the same criterion failed it.

  checked 2026-08-12catalogue entry →

• Anterique BP1

  2019rubric score 0/6below threshold

  The company was founded in August 2019, as its own site confirms, so the longevity criterion is arithmetically excluded until 2044. No awards, no proprietary technology, no scale, no cultural footprint.

  What would reopen the case: A design award in an organiser's database, documented institutional adoption, or a market of parts made for this model.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Aurora Aurora Hastil (wersja kulkowa)

  1970rubric score 0/7below threshold

  The candidate was to enter on design recognition and both pillars collapsed. Compasso d’Oro: every edition in the ADI archive was reviewed — the Hastil appears in none, nor do Aurora or Marco Zanuso in the edition of its launch year. MoMA: the collection’s open dataset (173,638 records) holds exactly one record containing “Hastil”, and it is issued for the fountain pen, not a ballpoint. The object itself is also uncertain: in the maker’s catalogue the family’s ballpoint code is described as a Thesi, a different model, and Hastil ballpoints sold by dealers carry no Aurora catalogue number.

  What would reopen the case: An Aurora catalogue number issued for a Hastil ballpoint — from the maker’s catalogue, not a shop — plus an award or museum record issued for that version rather than for the fountain pen.

  checked 2026-08-24

• Ballograf Epoca P

  rubric score 0/7below threshold

  Three criteria fell for three different reasons. The cultural footprint was taken by a single letter: the museum record gives the maker's title as "Epoca", without the "P", and searching that phrase in the museum's holdings returns zero hits — the variant cannot be established, so the evidence drops to line level. Longevity: the year 1961 attributed to the model exists only in the maker's current sales copy, while its own archive from 2014 gives 1960 for the line; the words "continuous" and "unchanged form" appear in no document, and the company's site says the opposite: products were developed and improved over the years. Canon: the 2012 anchor the whole range rested on, once opened, contains neither the model name nor a recommendation.

  True, but does not score: Material worth keeping despite the rejection: the pen used to sign Sweden's NATO membership application on 17 May 2022 is documented exemplarily — inventory number, donation by the foreign minister, accession date, acquisition decision, place of signing, and the reason the pen was chosen: archival ink. The evidence, however, concerns the brand and the line, not this variant. The independence check also ruled out two sources that looked like corroboration: the museum display was commissioned by the maker, and the collector site cites a company employee as its source.

  What would reopen the case: A document from outside the maker's orbit dating the Epoca P itself — a trade catalogue, a price list, a museum record with its own dating, or period trade press — plus two points on the timeline confirming production during the years of foreign ownership and after the factory moved. Separately: a museum reply identifying the variant would move the cultural footprint from line level to model level.

  checked 2026-08-16

• BIC M10

  1956rubric score 1/7below threshold

  Beyond longevity, nothing. The whole layer of iconicity comes from a seventieth-anniversary campaign in 2026 — marketing material rather than independent recognition. Model-level attribution in the artworks that were meant to supply a cultural footprint exists only in the maker's own materials; four independent institutions describing the same works say simply "stylo-bille", without a model.

  What would reopen the case: A museum description or exhibition catalogue naming the M10 specifically, independent of the maker's own materials.

  checked 2026-08-16

• BIC Orange Original Fine

  1961rubric score 1/7below threshold

  The second criterion was missing, and the single one that passed does not even carry the required source weight: it rests on one institution and one curatorial paragraph duplicated across two catalogue records — formally a weight of 1.0 against the required 2.0. The rest of the evidence concerns the BIC line or the Cristal, not this variant.

  What would reopen the case: A second independent institution or an award issued to the Orange, plus evidence for a second criterion.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Cross Classic Century

  1953rubric score 1/6below threshold

  The presidential role the entire cultural-footprint claim rested on belongs to other models in the family. The press names the Townsend (the 2010 health-care signing) and the Century II. The claim for the Classic Century comes solely from the maker's own blog. The enthusiast canon has just one independent outlet with a dated piece about this pen.

  True, but does not score: Longevity is met: launched 1953, patented mechanism. Cultural footprint and canon exist at the level of the Century line, design recognition at brand level (Good Design 2003 for the ION).

  What would reopen the case: A document tying the Classic Century specifically to a public event — a captioned photograph, a museum description or press coverage naming the model rather than just the brand.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Eterpen Birome

  1943rubric score 0/7below threshold

  The world's first commercialised ballpoint entered verification with two criteria and left with zero — both fell on positive evidence, not on missing data. Design recognition: the 2005 distinction from the American society of mechanical engineers is not an award and does not concern this object. The programme's rules never use the word "award", and both occurrences of it in the ceremony handbook explicitly set awards apart from a plaque designation; the programme is run by a different committee than the society's awards. The category granted was "collection", described by the organiser itself as not necessarily marking an evolutionary step, and it covered a set of pens from 1938–1948 exhibited in Buenos Aires, commemorating the inventor rather than the object's design. Technical priority: all eleven patent claims take the form in which the preamble is admitted prior art — a thick-ink reservoir, a free ball in its seat and a single channel are written in as known. What remains novel are only the grooves in the seat walls, and a third party had published that same principle earlier. The "competitors paid" chain broke in three places: the year is different (1945, not 1944), the instrument is different (a royalty licence, not a sale), and one link is a joint venture of the inventor's own financier — his side, not a competitor.

  True, but does not score: The word "birome" simply means "ballpoint pen" in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, and is recorded in the Spanish dictionary with a first attestation in 1947. We did not count this as a cultural footprint: the criterion requires a role outside stationery, and a word meaning "ballpoint" sits inside it. This ruling is reversible, and under a different reading the candidate would have one criterion more.

  What would reopen the case: Three routes, in this order. First, restating technical priority as one narrow sentence about the ball-seat construction, based on findings in a 1960s American judgment stating that every ballpoint on the market uses a seat with the same four features — evidence from court records rather than a brochure, but it requires checking the appellate history and deciding whether the rubric admits evidence about a patent family rather than an object. Second, a distinction assessing this model's design: a design exhibition, a design collection or a design award — nothing of the sort has surfaced. Third, a primary document for the launch date: the Buenos Aires commercial register, Argentine press from 1943–1944, or the company's records.

  checked 2026-08-17

• Faber-Castell e-motion

  rubric score 1/6below threshold

  The Red Dot 2015 was confirmed in the organiser's database as an award for the "e-motion pure Black" variant, and the record describes an anodised aluminium fountain pen. The ballpoint has no award of its own. Canon: exactly two pieces about the ballpoint were found, one of them a retailer's blog — evidence of distribution, not recognition. The ballpoint adopts someone else's refill standard, so technical priority is excluded by definition.

  True, but does not score: Design recognition and enthusiast canon exist at the level of the e-motion line.

  What would reopen the case: An award record issued to the e-motion ballpoint, or two independent outlets with dated pieces about this pen.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Kaweco Classic Sport Kugelschreiber

  1994rubric score 0/7below threshold

  Evidence adhering to the ballpoint was missing. The model's fame, the DIY modification programme, the 3D-printing platform and the Olympic licence all belong to the fountain pen. The maker's only sentence about the ballpoint dates five writing classes at once — a series date, not a model date.

  True, but does not score: The model was already rejected once in this project for a related reason. The repeat research produced no new evidence.

  What would reopen the case: A maker's statement giving a launch date and production continuity for the ballpoint itself.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Kaweco Liliput

  rubric score 0/6below threshold

  The reissue is little more than a decade old. The supposed design recognition comes from the Red Dot museum's SHOP, not its collection — evidence of retail, not recognition. Canon: two pieces from 2015 and 2017 about the brass variant, while the most recent trade coverage of the Liliput concerns the fountain pen.

  What would reopen the case: An entry in a museum collection rather than a museum shop, or two independent outlets writing about the ballpoint version.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Kaweco Sport (wersja kulkowa)

  rubric score 0–1/6below threshold

  Two of the three reviews making up the canon concern the aluminium version from 2003, not the classic. Longevity rests on line-level evidence — the 1994 relaunch of the series — with no maker's statement on continuous production of the ballpoint. The cultural footprint, including the 1971 Olympic licence, belongs to the fountain pen, and predates the company's dormancy at that.

  What would reopen the case: A maker's statement on continuous production of the ballpoint, plus reviews concerning the classic Sport rather than the aluminium variant.

  checked 2026-08-11

• LAMY safari (wersja kulkowa)

  rubric score 1/7below threshold

  Three positive verdicts landed at line or brand level, so none of them scores. The iF award from 1994 and the Good Design record describe a fountain pen — 139 mm, 15 g, a nib. The enthusiast canon carries the line: two dedicated pieces about the ballpoint in twelve years. The replacement market is defined by a refill format shared across all this maker's ballpoints, not made for this model. The maker publishes no launch year for the ballpoint anywhere.

  True, but does not score: This candidate was researched as a deliberate test of the rubric and behaved exactly as predicted. A detail worth noting: on its own product page for the ballpoint, the maker lists the iF award, although the organiser's database describes the winning object as a fountain pen. It is the same attribution error this project corrected in its own work — only committed by the manufacturer.

  What would reopen the case: A launch year for the ballpoint from a maker's document, plus an award or museum record issued to the ballpoint rather than the fountain pen.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Montblanc Meisterstück Classique (wersja kulkowa)

  rubric score 0/7below threshold

  Nothing was there at the level of the ballpoint. The number 164 does not appear on the maker's current product page. No museum holds a BALLPOINT from this brand — the object at the Victoria and Albert Museum is the 149 fountain pen. The iF and Red Dot awards concern the company's typeface and the M collection, not this object. No document gives a launch date.

  True, but does not score: The model was already rejected once in this project, in August 2026, for the same reason. The repeat research produced no new evidence, so the rule on reopening a case was not triggered — this confirms the earlier decision rather than making a new one.

  What would reopen the case: A manufacturer source dating the introduction of the ballpoint, plus a museum record or award issued to the ballpoint rather than the fountain pen.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Montblanc Meisterstück Classique 164

  rubric score 1/6below threshold

  Every known piece of evidence belongs to the fountain pen or to the brand. The Victoria and Albert Museum holds a Meisterstück 149 — a fountain pen, not a ballpoint. Historic signings, including German reunification in 1990, are reported as "a Montblanc pen" without a model and in practice involve fountain pens. Not one independent outlet was found with a dated piece about the 164 ballpoint, and its launch date remains disputed — no manufacturer source was found at all.

  True, but does not score: Design recognition at line level: the V&A object is the 149 fountain pen.

  What would reopen the case: A manufacturer source dating the introduction of the 164 ballpoint, plus a second independent outlet with a dated piece about it.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Muji długopis żelowy 0,5 mm

  rubric score 1/7below threshold

  There is not even a launch year, and the 2019 rebuild of the line changed barrel dimensions so that older refills no longer fit — which rules out continuity of form. The Good Design award from 2022 was granted to the whole refillable-pen series, not to this model. The name "Muji gel 0.5" today covers two different pens, capped and retractable, which alone makes assessment impossible.

  What would reopen the case: Splitting the candidate into two specific products with catalogue numbers and finding a launch date for at least one of them. The theory circulating on forums that another company makes the refill has neither catalogue numbers nor a statement from either party.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Ohto Horizon

  rubric score 0/6below threshold

  Every technical priority the brand invokes (1949, 1963/64, 1978, 1981) belongs to the company as a whole, not to this model. The Horizon's own launch year is unestablished — the 2017 date comes from the earliest review found, not from a maker's catalogue.

  What would reopen the case: A manufacturer catalogue dating the Horizon's introduction, and evidence that one of the brand's priorities was introduced in this model specifically.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Paper Mate Deluxe

  1951rubric score 0/7below threshold

  The one load-bearing lead had no document behind it. The whole story about banks accepting ballpoint signatures, which was supposed to constitute institutional adoption, turned out to be the maker's advertising copy. Period court records document a marketing manoeuvre — handing pens out to bankers — not a change in banking practice or any industry document.

  What would reopen the case: A banking circular, industry standard or statute from the 1950s permitting ballpoint signatures and naming the model, or at least the brand.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Paper Mate InkJoy

  2011rubric score 0/7below threshold

  Both the object and the figure were missing. The maker's own documents consistently call InkJoy a LINE, not a model, and all thirty-two of the brand owner's stock-exchange filings contain not a single unit volume — only monetary amounts are reported. The award that surfaced in the lead was granted to a public-relations campaign, not to a pen.

  What would reopen the case: Identifying a specific model within the InkJoy family and a cumulative unit figure for it, given by the maker.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Pilot Acroball

  2008rubric score 0/7below threshold

  Zero criteria. Eighteen years and a full barrel redesign in 2024 rule out longevity. No award. Low-viscosity ink was introduced by a competitor in 2006, so Acroink is a response, not a priority. No sales figure of any kind, and no confirmed continuity in recommendations.

  What would reopen the case: A cumulative unit figure from the maker, or a document showing that Acroink preceded the competitor's solution.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Pilot G-2

  1997rubric score 1/6below threshold

  No cumulative sales figure exists publicly. The scale verdict rested on a forecast of 64 million units a year from a 2002 company fact sheet, multiplied out across the years — exactly the arithmetic rejected for another candidate. The maker's current claims about being number one in the US are value share, not unit counts. The enthusiast canon cuts the other way: the outlet that would establish it openly declines to recommend the pen and points to a competitor.

  True, but does not score: Longevity is met: launched 1997, confirmed by the maker's chronicle. Design recognition sits at line level — Good Design 1993 for the Pilot G-1, the first generation of the gel line. The refill standard stays on the site with a note resolving the name clash with the Parker G2, the most common error in this field.

  What would reopen the case: A manufacturer statement giving a cumulative unit figure for the G-2 itself — not for the gel line, and not expressed as market share.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Pilot Precise V5 / Hi-Tecpoint V5

  rubric score 1/7below threshold

  Longevity fell on the maker's own documents, which refute the date in both directions. The centenary chronicle dates the tube tip to 1980, and under 1984 lists only subsidiary companies. The US division's timeline gives 1985 for the model. The trademark declares first use in commerce on 1 November 1987. The sole source for 1984 is the European division's marketing page, and it refers to the line, not the model. The criterion's second limb — production in substantially unchanged form — has no document at all; absence of evidence of a redesign is not evidence of continuity.

  True, but does not score: Enthusiast canon is met. Separately: refilling this disposable with a syringe is documented in three independent sets of instructions, but does not count as modification culture — it restores the object's own function rather than building a platform on it.

  What would reopen the case: This is the most realistically recoverable entry in the reserve. It would be reopened by a maker's catalogue from the 1980s or 1990s with a drawing or photograph of the model that can be set against today's silhouette — continuity of the catalogue number is already documented from May 1997. The date would then have to be restated as 1985 or 1987.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Porsche Design P'3110

  1999rubric score 0–1/6below threshold

  The entry is, above all, badly defined: the name conflates two different products — a 1999 model with a telescopic button and a 2011 model with an inertial mechanism. Separated, both probably fail on the criteria. Production continuity was inferred from three points in time, with a changing form.

  What would reopen the case: Splitting this into two entries and researching each separately, starting from a maker's catalogue dating both constructions.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Reynolds Rocket

  rubric score 0/7below threshold

  What was missing was the object itself. Three independent documents — a federal court opinion from November 1945, a collector reference work and a biography based on an academic dissertation — agree that the pen sold at Gimbels on 29 October 1945 was not the Rocket but the International model. The court opinion, written three weeks after the launch and describing that very sale, consistently calls the object "the Reynolds pen" and never once uses the word Rocket. No document gives the Rocket its own launch date. Technical priority fails twice over: the design circumvented the patented capillary principle and used gravity feed — a solution that did NOT become the standard and was the direct cause of leaking — and Reynolds himself argued in court that the ballpoint had been "old in the art" since 1888.

  What would reopen the case: A period document dating the Rocket's own launch and distinguishing it from the International, or a design-museum record issued to this model. If the candidate is meant to be Reynolds's first pen of 1945, that is a different entry and needs its own research.

  checked 2026-08-16

• rOtring 600 (oryginalna generacja niemiecka)

  1989rubric score 0/6below threshold

  Production ran from 1989 to the early 2000s at most, after the brand changed hands in 1998 — roughly eleven years against a twenty-five-year threshold. No awards in the iF, Red Dot or Good Design databases. The canon of the 600 line belongs to the mechanical pencil, and reviews of the ballpoint concern the 2018 reissue, a different construction made in Japan.

  True, but does not score: Design recognition at brand level (Good Design 1986 for the Rapidograph) and enthusiast canon at line level — but the canon of the pencil, not the ballpoint.

  What would reopen the case: A manufacturer document confirming continuous production of the ballpoint after 2000, or an award record issued to the 600 itself.

  checked 2026-08-11

• rOtring 600 Ballpoint (reedycja japońska)

  2018rubric score 1/7below threshold

  The ballpoint version has no history of its own, and the maker settled the question itself: the product page for the ballpoint describes, under features, a lead advance mechanism and a lead guide sleeve — text lifted from the pencil. Longevity fell on positive counter-evidence: production was interrupted, and the 2018 reissue has finer knurling, more softly chamfered hexagon edges and no rotating colour-indicator ring. The hexagonal metal barrel and knurled grip predate the model and are not this brand's invention, and the refill adopts the Parker G2 standard belonging to someone else.

  True, but does not score: Enthusiast canon is met, and at the level of the ballpoint itself: three independent outlets have maintained dated pieces about this pen across thirteen years.

  What would reopen the case: A ruling on whether the German original and the Japanese reissue are one object — and if so, a manufacturer document on continuity. Read more strictly, the canon splits between two different objects and the original scores zero.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Schneider K 15

  1993rubric score 1/7below threshold

  Beyond longevity, nothing. The maker's awards concern other models, and the figure of three hundred million units a year refers to the whole company, not this pen. No presence in community lists at all, and no document of school adoption. The claim to be Germany's best-selling branded ballpoint invokes a ranking but does not connect this model to it.

  What would reopen the case: A unit figure given for the K 15 itself, a school procurement document naming the model, or two independent outlets. Separately, the same maker's Tops 505 is worth researching — it, not the K 15, is credited with the company's largest turnover.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Schneider Slider Edge

  2012rubric score 0/7below threshold

  Priority and independence were both missing. The competing low-viscosity ink predates the first Slider, and the maker's technology name appears in no patent document — the search returns zero results. Both reviews of the model come from a single round of samples handed out by a retailer in 2012, so they do not constitute a canon spread over time.

  What would reopen the case: A patent document for the Viscoglide technology predating the competition, or reviews from outside the 2012 sampling round.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Sheaffer Imperial

  rubric score 0/6below threshold

  The model's entire significance is that of a fountain pen and stems from the inlaid nib, which debuted on a different model in 1959. The Imperial ballpoint was an accessory in a set, not an object in its own right. No museum record, award or cultural footprint attributed to the model.

  What would reopen the case: Evidence that the ballpoint was sold and covered on its own — a catalogue, a campaign or editorial coverage of the pen itself.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Sunderland mk1

  rubric score 1/7below threshold

  Eleven years against a twenty-five-year threshold. Placing as a finalist in an EDC community contest is not a design competition. The canon is weaker than it looks: one of the pillar pieces is a sponsored post, and the continuity is closed out by the maker's own promotional page. User practice is unmet: the praised compatibility with other makers' refills is designed in and by definition requires no intervention — there is nothing to modify, because the designer anticipated everything.

  What would reopen the case: A design award in an organiser's database, or a part made for this model by a third party.

  checked 2026-08-12

• Tactile Turn Side Click

  rubric score 1/7below threshold

  The model is six years old, so longevity is excluded by definition. No award, no museum record; the side-release mechanism is proprietary but has not become an industry standard. User practice was assessed separately and is also unmet: every replacement part — clips, springs, switches, refill adapters — comes from the maker itself, which the criterion explicitly excludes. Third parties appear only as brand-collaboration partners.

  True, but does not score: The enthusiast canon is solid: four outlets between 2020 and 2024. That is still one criterion.

  What would reopen the case: A part made for this model by a third party that is not a collaboration partner, or adoption of the side-release mechanism by another maker.

  checked 2026-08-12

• Tombow AirPress

  2008rubric score 1/7below threshold

  Technical priority fell on positive counter-evidence, not on its absence. The maker's patent does not cover the pump principle itself, only the sealing and durability of the compression chamber, and it cites another company's March 2004 applications as prior art — the principle is older and belongs to someone else. Zebra filed its own application for the mechanism nine months before Tombow's priority date, and Pilot filed before Tombow's application was published. This is not adoption of a solution but three parallel lines of development.

  True, but does not score: Design recognition is met: Good Design 2008, an entry for the base model. The company's claim to be the pioneer of pressurised ballpoints is false against a 1965 construction.

  What would reopen the case: A document showing priority in a narrower, nameable feature — or a licence, assignment, or citation of Tombow's patent by Pilot or Zebra. Today the citation record contains no such document.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Tombow OBJECT

  1990rubric score 0/7below threshold

  The lead and the object did not match. All four Good Design awards the candidate rested on belong to a plastic series in the hundred-to-five-hundred-yen bracket, while the aluminium model in question has none — including in the maker's own awards archive.

  True, but does not score: This is the third model from this brand rejected in this project because awards, when checked in the organiser's database, turned out to concern a different object.

  What would reopen the case: An award record issued to the aluminium OBJECT, not to the plastic series.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Tombow ZOOM 707

  1987rubric score 1/6below threshold

  The three design awards the first assessment rested on have no records in the organisers' databases. The Good Design archive holds Tombow entries from 1982, 1983, 1988 and 1990, but no ZOOM. Red Dot lists Tombow — the ZOOM C1 from 2024, a different model. The Baden-Württemberg award dated to 1990 is impossible: the organiser has only granted it since 1991. The enthusiast canon fell apart under verification: two supposedly independent outlets turned out to be the same text by the same author at two addresses, which one of them flags as a reprint.

  True, but does not score: Longevity is met: production since 1987, confirmed by the maker. Design recognition exists at line level — Red Dot 2024 for the ZOOM C1.

  What would reopen the case: A record in the iF, Red Dot or Good Design database issued to the ZOOM 707 itself, or a second genuinely independent outlet with a dated piece about this model.

  checked 2026-08-11

• uni Power Tank

  2001rubric score 1/7below threshold

  Only the line is twenty-five years old. The 2001 model was discontinued; today's pen is a different silhouette from 2002, with a changed refill and designation along the way. The pressurised solution was not first — the factory-gassed refill was introduced by Fisher in 1965 — and the industry went in a competing direction anyway, towards click-actuated compression. The SN-220 designation under which the model is sometimes described does not exist in the maker's Japanese catalogue.

  True, but does not score: A distinction worth keeping: the market for pressurised ballpoints splits into two disjoint types. Fisher and the Power Tank use a factory-gassed refill; the Tombow AirPress, Pilot Down Force and Zebra WETNIE compress air on the fly when clicked and take ordinary refills.

  What would reopen the case: A manufacturer document showing one continuous construction from 2001 to today, or proof of institutional adoption — a procurement specification, an equipment list, a regulation.

  checked 2026-08-16

• uni-ball 207

  rubric score 0/7below threshold

  What was missing was a document of institutional adoption — the only lead that could have gone beyond reviews. A police post citing the ink's resistance to cheque washing itself notes there is no evidence for the maker's claim. A television test is a review, which the criterion excludes by definition. A full-text search of the brand owner's stock-exchange filings yields not a single unit figure. And the name "207" covers a family of models rather than one object.

  What would reopen the case: A procurement specification, regulation or equipment list naming the model — plus splitting the 207 family into specific products with catalogue numbers.

  checked 2026-08-16

• uni-ball eye UB-150

  1994rubric score 0/7below threshold

  A model-level date was missing — the maker's chronicle dates the LINE, not this designation. An award was missing: the organiser's database returns zero results. Canon was missing: the model is absent from every recommendation list of the outlet that establishes canon in this category, where it loses to a sibling model from the same brand.

  What would reopen the case: A maker's catalogue dating the UB-150 designation, or two independent outlets with dated pieces about this model.

  checked 2026-08-16

• Waterman Hémisphère

  rubric score 0–1/6below threshold

  The Victoria and Albert Museum returns zero records; Cooper Hewitt holds no objects from this brand. No award, no cultural footprint, no scale data, no technical innovation. The single criterion rested on one commercial-collector source, and the form changed across generations.

  What would reopen the case: A museum record or an award issued to the Hémisphère, together with a manufacturer document on construction continuity.

  checked 2026-08-11

• Zenith 7

  rubric score 0/7below threshold

  Production continuity is broken, not merely undocumented: a regional reference work describes production being suspended by an investor, the trademark passing to another company, and a relaunch by former employees under a licensing agreement. Sources also disagree on whether the years 1971 and 1974/1975 refer to the Zenith 4 or the Zenith 7 — no open source gives start or end dates for the seven.

  True, but does not score: A cultural footprint confirmed at brand level by an academic rather than commercial source: a monograph on regional design selects ten objects representing the design of the Silesian region and includes a Zenith ballpoint among them. The monograph does not, however, name a model. The catalogue remains without a Central European entry, and that is a finding rather than an oversight — regional representation is not a reason to lower the evidentiary standard.

  What would reopen the case: A collection record from a national museum's design holdings, or a document giving production dates for the seven. It also remains open whether the Zenith 4 is the better candidate.

  checked 2026-08-12

• Zenith Zenith 4

  rubric score 0/7below threshold

  The reserve had flagged the 4 as possibly a better candidate than the rejected Zenith 7. It fares worse, which settles that question. The new source worked against the candidate: Irma Kozina’s book (Muzeum Śląskie 2024) exists and is confirmed by a National Library record, but the long press account of it attributes the special party-congress commission to the Zenith FIVE and the entire construction description to the Zenith SEVEN. The 4 appears only in a list. Four sources give three different models for one founding story, and no source gives an end-of-production date.

  True, but does not score: This entry settles the question left open at the Zenith 7, which is also in the reserve.

  What would reopen the case: The chapter “Długopisy, którymi pisała cała Polska!” (pp. 149–164) read directly rather than through a press account, or a factory document with production dates for the 4. While sources attribute the same story to three different models, none of them can be described honestly.

  checked 2026-08-24

• uni Jetstream Prime

  2013rubric score 1/7a variant, not its own entry

  It does not carry an entry of its own. The maker calls Prime a series, the single criterion met applies to a variant, and the evidence scatters across multi-pens and the single-colour version. The material belongs in the Jetstream entry rather than on a separate page.

  What would reopen the case: Evidence at the level of the Prime itself — an award, a unit figure or a parts market — would justify a variant entry linked to the Jetstream.

  checked 2026-08-16catalogue entry →

• Paper Mate Flair

  out of scope

  This is not a ballpoint. It is a marker with a porous felt tip and water-based ink, with no ball — neither ballpoint, rollerball nor gel. The site's scope covers only those three kinds. The decision entails rejecting the Pentel Sign Pen from the same class: keeping one while rejecting the other would be indefensible.

  checked 2026-08-11

Methodology →