What Color Is Sheaffer's White Dot?

[kirchh]

There is not an isolated white dot in his origin and genesis, there is not a white point inserted in a square, there is not a white point inserted into a rhombus. It is, even today, a white dot inserted and concentric with another circle darker ... as the center of a target or, if you prefer, as the front page of Sheaffer´s first catalog.

 

Is possible that you see one but I, even today, see two circles.

How many circles do you see in the logo on these pens, which appeared in the first few months that the White Dot was used?

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/4earlypens2.jpg

(Photo courtesy Roger Wooten)

 

Why did Sheaffer call the logo the "White Dot", completely ignoring the outer circle and making no reference at all to a target or bullseye?

 

--Daniel

Edited December 25, 2012 by kirchh

[lazard]

The White Dot was designed in 1923 and early 1924. The fountain pen that your samples are very, very end of 1924 and 1925 onwards. The people designer of the White Point could not see them for inspiration then this implies that your pictures are irrelevant... like the rest of yours comments

 

Many previous posts: Obviously I am speaking about the origin of the logo. Not from his later adjustments to the spaces, modes or models.

 

Many, many, previous posts: and is his origin as bull's eye -or center of a dartboard-. Definitively White

 

Dont you know read?. Please do not insist on matters after the summer of 1924. I´ll dont answer to you.

[kirchh]

The White Dot was designed in 1923 and early 1924.

Is this speculation, or do you have actual evidence of this claim?

 

The fountain pen that your samples are very, very end of 1924 and 1925 onwards. The people designer of the White Point could not see them for inspiration then this implies that your pictures are irrelevant... like the rest of yours comments

 

Many previous posts: Obviously I am speaking about the origin of the logo. Not from his later adjustments to the spaces, modes or models.

So your new claim is that the White Dot only represented a target until it was used on desk pens, at which point Sheaffer abandoned the bullseye imagery rather than simply include an outer ring on the logo on desk pens?

 

What about the fact that Sheaffer never mentioned a target or bullseye at the time of first use of the White Dot?

 

Many, many, previous posts: and is his origin as bull's eye -or center of a dartboard-. Definitively White

First of all, the target Sheaffer used briefly around 1913 is not a dartboard, but an archery target. I think you know the difference, but if you do not, I will enlighten you.

 

Next, you earlier claimed that the center of an archery target is traditionally white:

 

The Bull´s Eye -probable origin- is, traditionally, white.

I proved that this claim is false. Are you now again claiming that the bullseye is traditionally white? If so, I'm afraid your bias is completely drowning whatever objectivity you might have had. Please clarify your position on this question.

 

Dont you know read?. Please do not insist on matters after the summer of 1924. I´ll dont answer to you.

Why haven't you directly addressed the many factual questions that I have asked and the points that I have made? Surely you know that evasion is an indicator that you are afraid of the implications of truthful answers.

 

I again ask that you respond to the clear questions I have asked you. They are in my previous posts, but if you are unable to find them, please tell me and I will list them again for you. I hope, for your sake, you will not continue to evade these important questions.

 

Thank you.

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

There is not an isolated white dot, there is not a white point inserted in a square, there is not a white point inserted into a rhombus. It is, even today, a white dot inserted and concentric with another circle darker ... as the center of a target

You are incorrect. The trademark as filed by Sheaffer is only for a white dot, not for "a white dot inserted and concentric with another circle". Clearly, if Sheaffer intended the trademark to represent a bullseye, they would have included the outer ring in their description of their trademark. But they did not.

 

Here's the description of the trademark from Sheaffer's filing:

 

"the trademark consisting of a white circular figure or dot located on the pen cap"

 

Proof that Sheaffer did not consider the perimeter of the pen cap to be a part of the design is this additional statement in the trademark application:

 

"The [white dot] mark is also used on the pen or pencil barrel."

 

Therefore, I have conclusively proven that the outer ring of the bullseye you claim to see was not even part of Sheaffer's trademark. The design consisted solely of the white dot. And a white dot cannot be considered a bullseye by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Classifying your claim as "speculation" is becoming an exercise in generosity.

 

I am still awaiting your responses to the earlier points I raised, though I am starting to suspect that you would prefer to continue evading than admit your errors, which is very disappointing. The hobby has a lot of misinformation, and it is difficult to combat when the people who are spreading it will not engage in a sincere discussion of the evidence. On the other hand, I trust that readers here will quickly recognize the facts of the matter, and they will draw the appropriate conclusion from your refusal to address the issues I have raised.

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

lazard -

 

I should also point out that there is a trademark category (21.03.12) for marks that represent "Targets without crosshairs or alignment guides".

 

Sheaffer's White Dot trademark is not classified in that category.

 

But marks like this, are:

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/MARC_Logo.gif

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Zinnser_Logo.gif

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Archery_Logo.gif

 

If Sheaffer's White Dot trademark represented a target, why wouldn't it be classified as representing a target?

 

--Daniel

[Happy Harry]

Interesting debate !! The origin or rational behind the "white dot" has never crossed my mind because it's fairly irrelevant to my "pen world" so I add nothing of any relevance or factual base. Still the similarity to a "target" is obvious as is the need for a simple , easily identifiable mark to signify the "top end". I think it fair to say we'll never know the "ideology" behind the "white dot", whether it was based "loosely" on a target ( how many cheap, tacky throw away ads could you come up with that line of thought?) or simply because it's a highly visible feature ( again easily advertised )will never be known. If I had to speculate ( or make a wild guess) I'd find the "target" origin a distinct possibility that very quickly changed to something with a bit more class...the simple "white dot" that signifies quality.

[lazard]

.

Edited December 27, 2012 by lazard

[lazard]

.

Edited December 27, 2012 by lazard

[kirchh]

For those who think that intelligence was not involved in the Sheaffer logo.

 

Millions of dollars of advertising time. Millions of dollars of research. Joseph Platt working for the industry, The Bauhaus working for the sector. Universities working for the industry, Henry Dreyfuss working for the sector, a child actress Wearever as image, famous writers such as brand image. A man capable of employing 40 men during 4 months to move a maple... but to design the image of your Life and Creation let it rain from heaven. Uhhhmmm!.

 

Careful!!, :meow: you're closer than you think to change your mind.

Lazard -

 

Why won't you address all the specific questions I have asked of you?

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

Only for those who think that a logo in a fountain expresses nothing:

 

I have 3 Parker Vacs with a 5-pointed star in the clip. If an fountain pen logo does not represent anything, Why change to a diamond?

 

Careful! :meow: , you could conclude that logo has meaning and not to like?

 

 

For those who think that intelligence was not involved in the Sheaffer logo.

 

Millions of dollars of advertising time. Millions of dollars of research. Joseph Platt working for the industry, The Bauhaus working for the sector. Universities working for the industry, Henry Dreyfuss working for the sector, a child actress Wearever as image, famous writers such as brand image. A man capable of employing 40 men during 4 months to move a maple... but to design the image of your Life and Creation let it rain from heaven. Uhhhmmm!.

 

Careful!!, :meow: you're closer than you think to change your mind.

I must say, I'm astounded by how many logical fallacies you have managed to squeeze into your argument. So far you have employed the Argument from Ignorance, the Argumentum ex Silentio, a variation of Begging the Question, the False Dilemma, Equivocation (see the "black is not a color" argument), a False Analogy (see Star clip), Card Stacking, Non-Sequitur ("Jewels of Pendom"), Overgeneralization, the Red Herring fallacy, Sloganeering, Argument from Ignorance ("except that anybody shows evidences that annul it" the White Dot represents a bullseye), Straw Man ("to design the image of your Life and Creation let it rain from heaven"), There Is No Alternative, and the Hasty Conclusion.

 

Impressive.

 

As these arguments are all fallacies, they do not, by definition, support your position. I'm not even sure how to classify the fallacy you deploy when you argue that Sheaffer spent a lot of money on things, so therefore the White Dot must represent a bullseye. I suppose it's a variation of Affirming the Consequent coupled with an Argument from Ignorance.

 

But let's look at the evidence, none of which is in dispute:

 

- In 1913, apparently for just a few months, Sheaffer briefly used the image of an archery target and a slogan, "The Bull's Eye of Perfection", for their company's products.

- In at least some color advertisements, the center of the bullseye is dark, and the surrounding ring is red, with alternating light/red rings around that

- For about ten years, Sheaffer makes no reference whatsoever to a bullseye or target in any known materials, either pictorially or with verbiage

- Sheaffer's trademark filing is only for the white dot. It is not for a white dot with a surrounding black (or dark) circle.

- Sheaffer's trademark filing for the White Dot specifically mentions that it -- the dot alone -- may be applied to the barrel of a pen or pencil.

- Sheaffer's trademark filing makes no mention of a target or bullseye.

- Sheaffer's White Dot trademark is not classified as representing a target.

- Sheaffer names its new Lifetime logo the "White Dot". It is not named in any way that states or implies it is supposed to represent a target or bullseye.

- Sheaffer's earliest ads that show and describe the White Dot have no imagery or wording that describe the new logo as representing a target or bullseye. On the contrary, ads say, for example, "Spot it by the dot in its field of jade." A dot in a field of jade reasonably is not a description of a bullseye.

- Black ribbon-lined hard rubber Lifetime pens that are advertised after the White Dot logo was first used do not have the White Dot, according to dated advertisements.

- The first color of celluloid used for pens by Sheaffer was jade green. This is stated in Sheaffer's autobiography.

- The first ad for a celluloid Sheaffer calls the new material Jadite, clearly indicating it was only available in green. Black celluloid pens were not yet being advertised.

- That same first ad for a celluloid pen also contains the first appearance of the White Dot logo, which appears against a Jade background. There is no mention or reference to a target or bullseye.

- From the above, we can conclude that the Jade pen was the first to have the White Dot, as black hard rubber pens advertised after the logo was first used are shown without it, and as black celluloid pens were not yet being offered.

- Therefore, the first application of the White Dot to a product had the dot on a Jade green background.

- The specimen in the trademark file shows the dot on a Jade backkground.

- The traditional color of an archery bullseye is not white. It is gold.

- The traditional color of the next ring in an archery target is not black (or green). It is red.

 

Again, none of the facts listed above are in dispute. Therefore, it is beyond generous to label your claim that the White Dot logo represents a bullseye as "speculation".

 

I would be very interested in any specific, factual, evidence-based challenges you have to the above facts, though hope is dimming that you are really interested in a sincere discussion of this issue, as you have evaded even the simplest questions, such as the one regarding the original color of the disk in the top of your Jade pen's cap.

 

--Daniel

[FarmBoy]

Only for those who think that a logo in a fountain expresses nothing:

 

I have 3 Parker Vacs with a 5-pointed star in the clip. If an fountain pen logo does not represent anything, Why change to a diamond?

 

Careful! :meow: , you could conclude that logo has meaning and not to like?

I too have a few "Star Clip" Vacumatics. I fail to see how this has anything to do with a discussion of the "White Dot" Sheaffer'S marking.

 

If you would like to have a discussion of Parker treatment of clips including the "Blue Diamond", the "Star", and some of the other known markings that would be worthy of pursuit but not in the Sheaffer forum. I would invite you to the 'other forum' fpnuts.com so some of the more seasoned Vacumatic collectors can participate as well.

 

Carry on, I am enjoying this.

 

Regards,

 

Todd

[kirchh]

Interesting debate !! The origin or rational behind the "white dot" has never crossed my mind because it's fairly irrelevant to my "pen world" so I add nothing of any relevance or factual base. Still the similarity to a "target" is obvious as is the need for a simple , easily identifiable mark to signify the "top end". I think it fair to say we'll never know the "ideology" behind the "white dot", whether it was based "loosely" on a target ( how many cheap, tacky throw away ads could you come up with that line of thought?) or simply because it's a highly visible feature ( again easily advertised )will never be known. If I had to speculate ( or make a wild guess) I'd find the "target" origin a distinct possibility that very quickly changed to something with a bit more class...the simple "white dot" that signifies quality.

I agree -- it is mere speculation, or perhaps a wild guess, that the origin of the White Dot is a target.

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

Only for those who think that a logo in a fountain expresses nothing:

 

I have 3 Parker Vacs with a 5-pointed star in the clip. If an fountain pen logo does not represent anything, Why change to a diamond?

 

Careful! :meow: , you could conclude that logo has meaning and not to like?

I too have a few "Star Clip" Vacumatics. I fail to see how this has anything to do with a discussion of the "White Dot" Sheaffer'S marking.

 

If you would like to have a discussion of Parker treatment of clips including the "Blue Diamond", the "Star", and some of the other known markings that would be worthy of pursuit but not in the Sheaffer forum. I would invite you to the 'other forum' fpnuts.com so some of the more seasoned Vacumatic collectors can participate as well.

 

Carry on, I am enjoying this.

 

Regards,

 

Todd

Todd -

 

If I may, I think the reasoning, such as it is, goes something like this:

 

- Either the White Dot represents a bullseye, or it represents nothing

 

- Parker changed their high-line emblem from a star to a diamond; they would only have done this if the logo represented something. Therefore, all pen logos represent something.

 

- Therefore, the White Dot logo represents something. Since it can't represent nothing, the only remaining possibility is that it represents a bullseye. QED.

 

--Daniel

[lazard]

.

Edited December 27, 2012 by lazard

[kirchh]

I´m sorry.

 

Leonardo da Vinci was the first to suggest an alternative hierarchy of color. In his Treatise on Painting, he said that while philosophers viewed white as the "cause, or the receiver" of colors and black as the absence of color, both were essential to the painter, with white representing light, and black, darkness. He listed his six colors in the following order: white, yellow (earth), green (water), blue (air), red (fire), and black.

Black is the absence of color (and is therefore not a color)

Explanation:

When there is no light, everything is black. Test this out by going into a photographic dark room. There are no photons of light. In other words, there are no photons of colors.

en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Color_Theory -

… while black represents the absence of all colors.

 

http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~rcollins/242photojournalism/colortheory.html

Obviously, 0, 0, and 0 will produce black, or absence of color

www.creativebloq.co...

19 Nov 2012 Understanding colour theory will help you make informed choices as a ... is the combination of colour, while black is the absence of colour.

And so on…

An excellent example of the fallacy of equivocation.

 

Your verbosity on this irrelevant digression stands in stark contrast to your silence on all the pertinent issues I have enumerated.

 

To bring this specific point back from the wilds of semantic hand-waving, I re-state that you have presented no evidence whatsoever that the White Dot was first used in a black pen, whereas I have presented evidence that the White Dot was first used in a Jade pen.

 

I would be very interested in any evidence and (non-fallacious) reasoning you might wish to present on this topic. I urge you to address each assertion I made in my previous posts and explain why you disagree with it, if indeed you do. Your failure to respond to such requests can reasonably be taken as agreement with all the points I have made.

 

You don't seem to realize the very poor impression you are giving due to your evasions. Please reconsider your approach and have the strength to deal with the relevant issues directly if you wish to be taken seriously here.

 

--Daniel

Edited December 27, 2012 by kirchh

[FarmBoy]

If you get a better detector [than your eye], you will find that a black body radiates electro-magnetic radiation (photons). A black body in equilibrium at room temperature emits primarily in the infrared and because your eye has no ability to detect infrared radiation it appears black.

[watch_art]

Merry Christmas!!, Daniel.

Thank you, though in my case it will be a Merry Chinese-Food-and-Movie day (I'm Jewish).

 

Do you have any comment on the points that I made?

 

--Daniel

 

Mmmm. Some Chinese sounds really good right now.

[JonSzanto]

http://lucaskrech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/addsubmixing.jpg

[watch_art]

Ooh! Color theory!

[kernando]

So, who else, upon reading the thread title, wanted to post or see written "Who wrote Beethoven's fifth symphony?" or something along those lines?

 

I guess I feel slightly sorry for the original poster. Does anybody know anything about white plastics? They so often seem to fade, and my guess is UV exposure. A Balance II does not seem old enough for that. I have a Snorkels with dots faded to ivory color. The funny thing about them is that they're both black, from Canada, and don't have any gold. My other colored ones are fine.

 

For me, xmas eve dinner is usually at a Chinese restaurant. But this year we went to a prime rib and seafood place.

 

Popcorn? Yay physics and color theory. I am glad this thread doesn't involve Paypal disputes and nibs set to cap rush depth.

 

I can't wait for the discussions of Cardinal red and Chinese lacquer red and Mandarin yellow and Mandarin orange.