Why Craig Was A Sheaffer Sub-Brand

[Lazard 20]

Why Pendom affirm that Craig, since its establishment, is a Sheaffer's sub-brand?

 

Why Pendon affirm that Craig brand name comes from Craig R. Sheaffer name?

 

On which fundamentals does someone affirm this?

 

I do not believe that Craig pens was born as a Sheaffer´S sub-brand; in the same way I do not believe that this Craig commercial name comes from Craig Sheaffer.

Edited January 12, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Lazard 20]

Why Pendom´s citizens do affirm that Craig brand name comes from Craig R. Sheaffer name?

 

I claim that Craig pen´s origin, in the initial establishment of the company, was not related with Craig Sheaffer nor Sheaffer´S family, because Walter Sheaffer would never hide his patents nor the geographical origin of his manufactured.

 

 

Walter Sheaffer had a careful aesthetics and a sense of guaranteed responsibility as we can see, in general, through acts that shaped his life and, in particular, in his detailed barrel imprints, WASP sub-brand included, that does not match with the concealment of Craig pen´s patents nor its origin ausence nor its lack of seriousness. who was hiding behind the creation of the Craig Pen in their first years of life? -smile-

Edited January 13, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Tweel]

Maybe the pens are named for Harvey G. Craig .

 

(E.g. link,

link 2 )

[Lazard 20]

  On 1/14/2019 at 6:35 AM, Tweel said:

Maybe the pens are named for Harvey G. Craig -smile!- . (E.g. link, link 2 )

 

Hi, although this was unnecessary, thanks for the link; and I say it was unnecessary because I know the history and miracles of Walter Sheaffer from my own memory -including the one not cited in your link2*, Patent interference No. 38392. Craig vs. Sheaffer. Application of Harvey G. Craig filed April 9, 1914 and Final hearing February 1, 1916, directed by H. E. STAUFFER, Examiner of interferences (related but different case much most important for Walter´s future and prior to this case Sheaffer against Barrett...and the Kraker Pen Co.; Barrett et al. (Barrett and others) that your link, nor Pendom, appointment it!) - because was me, and not another, who translated into Spanish both 71 pages of Walter's Life Story, unknown pages nums 59 and 60 inclusive, and this Patent Interference ... so that I am one of the few people of the world who can tell you this story in two languages; English or Spanish; as you prefer -smile-.

 

...wil be continued.

 

 

*After I reading your link I am deeply dislike, as unfounded and unfair, because the shadows of doubt about Walter Sheaffer´s honesty what fly over in these web article.

Edited January 14, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Herobrinefly]

Well,because Craig pens are quite alike Sheaffer`s pens,especially the design of clip and lever. And "coincidently" Craig is the name of W.A.Sheaffer`s son so....

 

My opinion.I`m not sure.

[Lazard 20]

  On 1/14/2019 at 12:23 PM, Herobrinefly said:

Well,because Craig pens are quite alike Sheaffer`s pens,especially the design of clip and lever. And "coincidently" Craig is the name of W.A.Sheaffer`s son so....My opinion.I`m not sure.

 

In the first years, which is what we are talking about, alike nothing (if you have interes in this I will recomend you a look and comparing barrels and levers of one and the other) so you do very well not to feel sure, for illustrate this post I will tell you a nice and identical Pendom coincidence of a man with life very parallel to Walter, you will see:

 

Once upon a time that Geo. S. Parker pre-fountain pen worked in the telegraphy academy VALENTINE of R. Valentine, and then he got a sub-brand called VALENTINE, Eureka!!; sure, obviously, Parker put the name of his first workplace to his sub-brand!! Anyone would buy this... but is falsehood, it's a funny coincidence Valentine pen was Valentine pen of Valentine & Son before Parker... and I add; as Sheaffer with Craig sub-brand exactly -smile-

 

For today it is enough; I run out with hurry to play pádel.

Edited January 14, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Roger W.]

"Of course, he’s going to make the case the CRAIG was a reference to Harvey Craig. This is nonsense. According to testimony in Sheaffer v. Barret, Sheaffer was making CRAIG pens starting in 1912, and they were named after Craig R. Sheaffer." - Daniel Kirchheimer

 

Citation: US District Ct, Northern District of IL, Eastern Division. Walter A. Sheaffer vs. C.E. Barrett. In Equity. No. 348. 1124 Monadnock Block, Chicago, 11 Feb 1915, at 888.578

 

Daniel and I were discussing this yesterday and I was happy enough to have you ignored but, unfortunately some have come to play your game therefore, here it endeth.

 

Roger W.

[Vintagepens]

I will add that in this lengthy (and early) court case, no one contradicted the testimony of Walter A. Sheaffer regarding the naming of Craig pens. And it wasn't for this case having lacked anything in the way of contentiousness -- you can be sure that had Sheaffer made a contestable statement of any kind, it would have been jumped upon.

[Vintagepens]

Valentine was never a Parker sub-brand.

Valentine was an independent English pen company.

Valentine did contract manufacture for Parker in the 1930s (but also for many other companies).

Parker eventually took control of Valentine, but only some ten years after George S. Parker's death in 1937.

 

  On 1/14/2019 at 1:24 PM, RamonCampos said:

 

In the first years, which is what we are talking about, alike nothing (if you have interes in this I will recomend you a look and comparing barrels and levers of one and the other) so you do very well not to feel sure, for illustrate this post I will tell you a nice and identical Pendom coincidence of a man with life very parallel to Walter, you will see:

Once upon a time that Geo. S. Parker pre-fountain pen worked in the telegraphy academy VALENTINE of R. Valentine, and then he got a sub-brand called VALENTINE, Eureka!!; sure, obviously, Parker put the name of his first workplace to his sub-brand!! Anyone would buy this... but is falsehood, it's a funny coincidence Valentine pen was Valentine pen of Valentine & Son before Parker... and I add; as Sheaffer with Craig sub-brand exactly -smile-

 

For today it is enough; I run out with hurry to play pádel.

[PenHero]

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

It's not clear what prompted this thread. Who, exactly, is "Pendom?" Craig pens were made by Sheaffer. Valentine was not a Parker sub-brand.

 

This is an example of why primary sources, such as company documents, catalogs, service manuals, court cases, even advertisements are necessary to support claims made about their products. It's also helpful to lean on the collecting community to help validate and confirm what we know. Someone may have sources that others don't.

 

Thanks.

[Lazard 20]

  On 1/14/2019 at 1:43 PM, Roger W. said:

According to testimony in Sheaffer v. Barret, Sheaffer was making CRAIG pens starting in 1912, and they were named after Craig R. Sheaffer." - Daniel Kirchheimer

 

Citation: US District Ct, Northern District of IL, Eastern Division. Walter A. Sheaffer vs. C.E. Barrett. In Equity. No. 348. 1124 Monadnock Block, Chicago, 11 Feb 1915, at 888.578

 

 

Testimony of Walter Sheaffer, testimony of Harvey Craig the delinquent condemned in this law suit, testimony of a third party, testimony of who? which docket sheet?

 

I know everything officially published about this matter so It is very important that you present graph proof of this and not only words. Is it a document that belongs to the file case or are they simple extra preparatory notes of a simple lawyer who is not involved in the instruction itself and that he defended the interests of one part?

 

In the alleged document we can read that Walter says that he was manufacturing fountain pens in 1912 -what is true- or Walter says that he (Walter) was manufacturing eyedroppers and coin fillling Craig fountain pens from 1912 -what is not true?

 

You know we have Craig fountain pens, that I will present in the coming days, with coin filling systems, eyedropper, lever, etc Walter manufacturing eyedroppers secretly with an almost anonymous imprint?

 

He did not have enough in the first year to move his patented lever fillers forward and sell the pianos that still had in stock?

 

Sheaffer creating a sub-brand just started when he had not yet started to stabilized his own brand?

 

You know that Craig pens used a lever that is not the Sheaffer patented lever and that he used a clip other than the Sheaffer patented clip, why would Sheaffer have to plagiarize what he already had?

 

You know that Craig's barrels are different -more like Conklin than the Sheaffer's-; because Sheaffer in his humble beginnings had to have two different suppliers of levers and holders and double the machinery and processes for drilling different levers?

 

Why can not you submit a single document or evidence that place during 1912 to 1917 to Craig pens in Fort Madison?

 

I'll upload some proof that put Craig Pen far from Fort Madison, in another state; in Kansas City -the Kraker´s city, the city where Harvey Craig, the former Sheaffer employee, lived and worked during the years that concern us.

 

Walter Sheaffer beat in formidable form, with his honesty, 3 times 3, to Kraker-Craig in different administrative and judicial acts. With three very clear judgments in his favor Walter was not a man hiding under an anonymous imprint, on contrary condemned Harvey Craig fits perfectly with this unknown CRAIG imprint.

 

Will be continued.

 

Footnotes:

1) Please: remember that we are talking only about the 1912 to 1917 period.

2) I still think that the Parker-Valentine relationship is a great way to illustrate this type of misunderstanding be Valentine sub-brand, property or simply Parker related.

Edited January 14, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Lazard 20]

  On 1/14/2019 at 4:54 PM, PenHero said:

Hi, RamonCampos, It's not clear what prompted this thread. Who, exactly, is "Pendom?"

 

Hi, both Sheaffer and Parker, among others, have referred in their advertising to Pendom. "Pendom" is very cited by different brands in the sense of fountain pens universe. I understand it so: as King-dom(iniom) is Pen-dom(iniom). So we, now and here, while here we read or write in Sheaffer forum, are citizens aristocratic of Pendom -smile-

 

Some examples advertised among others:

 

"FLOWERS OF PENDOM" (Sheaffer)

"BY ITS WHITE DOT YOU SHALL NOW IT AS THE ARISTOCRAT OF PENDOM" (Sheaffer)

"PREEMINENCE IN PENDOM" (Waterman)

"THE BROADEST GUARANTEE IN PENDOM" (Sheaffer)

"JEWELS OF PENDOM" (Parker)

Edited January 15, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Roger W.]

Ramon;

 

Sheaffer’s success was founded on its lever-fillers, but from early on more economical pens were sold as well. The patent dispute testimony records that company policy was not to sell a lever pen for less than $2.50, but other self-fillers and eyedroppers were offered at $1 under other brand names (710.400). The main sub-brand was Craig, named after Walter Sheaffer’s son and future heir (888.578); the other sub-brand mentioned in the testimony was University, which Julius Schnell described as a coin-filler (1970.890).

 

Schnell appears to have been responsible for providing the holders for all of these early dollar pens. The nibs – #2 and #3 warranteds, judging from surviving specimens – came from George P. Gaydoul & Co. (1955.875), and the self-filling pens used a cheap off-the-shelf spring pressure-bar from the Duryea company (1906.826, 1961.881). Sheaffer’s first dollar pens were produced some time after work had started on the single-bar lever-fillers, though not too much later, since on June 26, 1912, Kraker & Coulson (Sheaffer’s original partners and distributors) were already passing along an order for nineteen dozen single-bar Sheaffer pens, three and a half dozen eyedropper-filling dollar pens, and three cards of clips (522.212).Sheaffer also testified that Craig pens were being made before November 1912 (888.578; 389.79, 701.391). Apparently all of the dollar pens were eyedroppers at first (824.514, 1906.826), coin-fillers being added to the line about a year later

 

- Daniel Kirchheimer

 

It is clear that "Craig" being Walter's son for whom the pen was named is not an old misapprehension oft repeated but, a fact backed up by contemporaneous evidence. As to these not being able to be produced by Sheaffer - the testimony clearly states that these pens were produced by Schnell as Schnell had the capacity to do so. Once again, Ramon, you are proving to have the historical capacity of a madman that ignores all of the facts so that you can prove that you have gleaned a superior insight into Sheaffer that all others have missed. You are going to show us Craig's obviously not produced by Sheaffer - we grant that these were made by Schnell so there is no need as it will prove nothing. Late Craig's made in Kansas City are very likely as Sheaffer took over the Kansas City factory after Kraker et al lost the case. It is well known that Sheaffer kept the workers on there for a few years. Sheaffer was even smart about it as production of the raised threads on the barrel ceased in Iowa and they adopted Kraker's flat profile threads. You are not proving anything but, a lack of knowledge on the topic. Also, you will not present any facts but, conjectures twisted to try to fit your narrative. Please stop - it is unbecoming.

 

Roger W.

[Lazard 20]

Here FPN users can read, by themselves and without interpretations, in the interference of the patent case Kraker & Craig vs. Sheaffer, as Walter comes out brilliantly winner and the criminals Kraker & Craig leave embarrassed and ridiculed. On the other hand they can read too as nothing is said about Sheaffer is making eyedroppers or coins fillers, nor Craig pens nor under sub-brand nor anything else that does not come from his successful patent:

 

SUMMARIZE:

 

1) Craig has very clearly failed to discharge the burden resting upon him, lie has not established independent inventorship, or disclosure to Sheaffer and the circumstances in my judgment areall in favor of Sheatfer; and judgment will therefore be entered in his favor.Priority of invention of me subjet matter in issue is hereby awarded to Walter A. Sheaffer,the senior party.Limit of appeal, Sept, ‘22. 1916. H. E. STAUFFER.Examiner of interferences. Aug. 22. 1916.

 

2) Nothing about Sheaffer manufacture anything else that does not come from his successful patent

 

extended information:

 

 

EXCEPTS FROM DECISION IN SHEAFER INTERFERENCE CASE IN PATENT OFFICE

Establishing Priority of Pen Patents of the Local Industry Gathering of Testimony and c conducting of Case Occupied Long and Tedious Period---Means Much in Way of Recognition Herewith is given a synopsis of the decision of the examiner in the pen patent case of Craig versus Sheaffer, wherein a litigation of long standing and expensive and trying trial work is determined in favor of the W. A. Sheaffer inventions. Directly the decision establishes the priority of the Sheatfer pen patents, and indirectly it removes a cloud from the future of the local industry which has risen far above any purely home commercial enterprise and now bears national distinctions and recognition unsurpassed by its notable competitors. The case has taken the examiners and the attorneys to cities of the north, south and central west. It has involved a deep study of the intricacies surrounding the patent privileges of a product which becomes a necessity \n every home and office in the country. The ruling opens to the local factory and the local company the recognition of trade of the world and removes all estrictions on its development Examiner Staufier, in closing his decision, makes a sweeping statement which leaves no doubt as to all the contentions of Mr. Sheafier. He says: “Craig has very clearly failed to discharge the burden resting upon him. He has not established independent inventorship or disclosure to Sheaffer, and the circumstances in my judgment
are all in favor of Sheaffer." The case was defended by the Kraker Pen Company at Kansas City, which had assumed the interests of Mr. Craig. The case reverts to the month of January, 1912, at which time the local factory had already manufactured some 200,000 pens. The entire decision of the examiner is far tool engthy for reproduction, but the following salient paragraphs are taken to give a clear idea of the discussion and the pertinent points involved:

Final hearing February 1, 1916. in the United States Patent Office. Patent interference No.
38392. Craig vs. Sheaffer, fountain pens. Application of Harvey G, Craig filed April 9, 1914, No. 880,686. Application of Harvey G. Craig filed February 27, 1914, No. 821.358. Patent to alter A. Sheaffer, granted November 24, 1914, No. 1,118.240, on application No_ 749,522 filed February 19, 1913.Mr. Rudolph Wm, Lotz and Messrs Bacon and Milans for Craig, Chas M. Bush of counsrl. mony of Julius L. Schnell (rebuttal Qs. 222-227 and 391392) shows that he was an experienced tool maker and metal worker. A patent was granted to Sheaffer upon the “single bar" pen on August 25, 1908, No, 596,861. Prior to the date of conception alleged by Craig, Sheaffer had filed three other applicatiOns for patents for inventions in fountain pens, upon which patents had either been issued or have since been granted.
No. 1,046,660 filed March'21, 1912, December 10, 1912; No, 1,064,098, filed March 21, 1912, issued June 10, 1913; No. 7,114,052, filed November 18, 1912, issued October 20, 1914.) Harvey G. Craig, the junior party, after leave issued 11. B. Willson St C0., and Messrs. Brown, Nissen & Sprinkle for Sheaffer This interference is between the applications of Harvey G_ Craig, filed February 27, 1914, and April 9, 1914, respectively, and the patent to Walter A_ Sheaffer, issued November 24, 1914, on an application filed February 19, 1913. The invention in issue is an improvement on self-filling fountain pens in which an elastic ink reservoir is compressed by a bar which is acted upon by a lever pivoted in a slot in the pen casing. The end of the lever passes through a slot in an upper bar, and acts upon a second bar, attached to the first bar. Upon releasing the second bar, a partial vacuum is produced by the expansion of the reservoir, the same thereby being filled with ink. This invention is referred to the "double bar” this way distinguished from the throughout the testimony as pen, and in ‘single bar" pen which the senior party manufactured before he began to make the double bar pen. Craig in his preliminary statement alleges conception of the invention about December 15, 1912; disclosure by means of a crude embodiment about December 16, 1912, and the manufacture and marketing by Sheaffer about April 1, 1913. Sheaffer alleges conception and disclose in January, 1912; disclose to Craig in November, 1912, He states that 200,000 pens involving the invention had been sold. This case is one of originality rather than of and reduction to practice in February, 1913. strict priority; only one invention has been made and the is the thereof Walter A. Sheaffer, the senior partner, is forty real question is, who inventor seven years old, and had been working as a jeweler for thirty years when he began the manufacture of fountain pens early in 1912. A considerable part of this time was spent at the bench. and his testimony (Q. 94) and the testing school in 1908 or 1907, was employed for about nine months by the Brown Shoe Company of St. Louis, Mo. He then became a clerk in the Adams Stamp & Seal C0., of St_ Louis, Mo., with which employers he remained for about six years, spending most of the time in the pen department selling and repairing fountain pens. In 1908 he spent a short time in the retail pen store of the Waterman Fountain Pen Company in New York City doing some repair work. As stated above, the question to be here decided is that of originality rather [than priority of the testimony is but invention. As is usual in such cases, in many respects conflicting, upon many points the parties agree, and as to these it will not be necessary to analyze or dis cuss the testimony in detail. Certain models were in the winter of 1912-1913. The parties dificr in some respects as to who worked upon made these models, and as to the time they were made; but they agree they were completed between December. 1912, and February, 1913. Sheaffer, with the knowledge of Craig, took steps in February, 1913, to patent the invention in his own name. Although Craig knew this, he did not himself file an application, or take any steps to protect his rights until more than a year thereafter, during which period he remained in the employ of the Sheaffer Pen Company. During this period the company made and sold a large number of pens embodying the issue here in controversy. Craig contends that he conceived the idea shortly after he entered Sheafers employ in November, 1912; that be disclosed the same to Sheaffer, and that the models made in the winter of 1912-1913 were the result of this conception and disclosure. Sheaffer admits that the models were made at or but that they were made as the result of his own in about the time claimed by Craig. asserts dependent conception. He denies any disclosures from Craig, but on the other hand contends that he directed Craig. as an employee, no make the models from which the invention was finally developed. He not only denies that Craig disclosed the invention to him, but claims conception of the issue as early as January, 1912, long prior to the time that Craig had any connection with the Inasmuch as Sheaffer claims an business. independent early conception and has introduced evidence to support this claim, this matter will be first considered, for if this contention is established, Sheaffer cannot under any circumstances be considered to have secured the invention from Craig. Sheaffer convention to claims to have first disclosed his ofiice in New York City. turer of fountain pens and parts thereof, and has Schnell is a manufacturer been engaged in the business for many years. Sheaffer in January, 1912, went to see Schnell in regard to parts of his so callcd single bar pen. He testified that while he was there he described to Schnell the two bar structure herein issue as The disclosure was made by means of sketches and an improvement over his earlier construction. by a so called Duryea bar which was found in Schnell‘s office.by Schnell in every particular. first witness called on behalf of Sheaffer, and he describes the structures which Sheaffer showed 1912.
examined by Craig, but was subtenaed This disclosure is corroborated Schnell was the him in January, He was not cross exas a witness for the junior party in rebuttal, and questioned at great length concerning the invention. His knowledge of the construction appears to be definite, and his testimony shows that he had a clear understanding of the proposed Arrangement. He not only testified to the date from memory, but fixes the time by certain charges against Sheaffer made on his books for samples supplied at that time. Some efi'ort has been made on behalf of Craig to discredit Schnell's testimony, but after a careful consideration of these matters the conclusion must be reached that he was a candid, straightforward witness, and in an honest and conscientious manner aimed to give all the information in his possession. There seems to be no substantial reunion why full faith and credit should not be given to his testimony. Inasmuch as his testimony fully supports the disclosure testified to by Sheaffer, it must be held that Sheaffer has established a conception of the invention as early as January, 1912. However, stated above, the testimony of Schnell must be regarded as establishing conception by Sheaffer as early as January, 1912.Since this was prior to the employment of Craig, and since Craig doesn't claim to have effected any actual reduction to practice except that produced by Sheafer early in 1913, Craig cannot prevail, and further consideration of the very large and involved record is really unnecessary. However, assuming that Sheaffer has not proved conception prior to the entry of Craig into this employment, still it is not believed that the evidence justifies the conclusion that Craig independ ently produced the invention. On the other hand, it would have to be held that evidence shows the junior party derived his knowledge from Sheaffer as stated above, the burden of the proof is heavily on Craig. Sheaffer was a man of experience in the manufacturing of pens; Craig was an employee. The burden therefore is upon him not only because he is the junior party, but because of the rule that where an invention is claimed both by an employee occupying a subordinate position. employer and an employee, the burden is usually on the employe to establish the superiority of his claim Robinson vs. McCormick, 128 O. G, 8289;29 App. D. C., 98). As often happens in cases of this class, no third party was present at the time either claims to have disclosed to the other. Such cases must thin-fore usually be decided upon the circumstances and other actions of the parties. These,however, are sometimes more important and convincing than direct testimony. These circumstances are in this case in favor of Sheaffer, and they tend to show that Craig’s claim is an afterthought, produced or stimulated perhaps by George M. Kraker the. circumstances. Reference will nbe made to some of that Sheaffer came east in February, 1913, to file an application Loth Craig ad Kraker knew for patent, and they both knew that at that time he made arrangements for manufacturing the double bar type of pen. They also knew that the actual sale of pens involving the issue was begun in April of that year and continued thereafter. Yet neither party made any protest to Sheaffer, and Craig made no claim to the invention. Kraker was at that time a stockholder in the corporation, and continued so until January, 1914. contract with the Sheaffer company for an ex- the Kraker Pen Company was organized in August, Even when he sold his stock, he made a elusive agency for Kansas City and vicinity.1914, and Kraker entered its employ in January, 1915. Sheaffer Pen Company until January or February, 1914, where left at the instigation of Kraker and shortly thereafter made connections with the Kraker Pen Craig continued with the Company. If Craig really regarded himself as the inventor of this matter, it was clearly his duty to assert his rights as soon as he knew that Sheaffer laid but no such claim was, on the other hand, he left Sheaffer proceed with his manufacturing and selling arrange-claim to the invention made tnents without taking any steps whatever to de and it year thereafter and after the invention has proved fend his alleged rights. is not .until to be a. commercial success, that we find Craig taking any active steps to patent the invention, Such delay in behalf of a party whose vital interests and then only at the instigation of Kraker. are at stake is always evidence that the claim is an ter thought, the result of some changed pur Thc effect ways discrediting to the claim, for such are not And it is only when there is some compelling reason is the clearest kind of evidence that the invention was in fact made by pose, connections or interests. is al the normal and reasonable actions of men .for the delay, or there the delayed claimant, that such claim can be sustained. The books contain numerous cases of this kind, and the decisions are uniform to the effect that where a party fails to claim the invention when it is his duty to do so, he will not thereafter be permitted to defeat another, except by evidence of the clearest possible character (Lloyd vs. Antisdell, 95 O, G., 1645; 17 App, D, C., 420; Scott vs. Scott, 98 O, G., 1650; 18 App. D, C., 490; Thibodeau vs. Hildreth, 117 O, G., 602; 25 App. D. C., 323). 'Moreover, tated above, the invention was not made until January, 1914, as Craig's claim to nearly a year after he knew Sheaffer had filed his application, and then only at the suggestion of Kraker. In january, 1914, Sheaffer acquired Kraker's stock in the Sheaffer Pen Company, but Kraker was at that time given the exclusive agency for a certain territory. Craig was still in the employ of the Sheaffer Company, and had not as yet given any idea of his intention to But after the sale of the Kraker stock, the situation immediately changed. Kraker directly after this took Craig on a trip to Burlington, 1a, and at that time talked with him about the invention, and entered into some claim the invention. preliminary contract or agreement with him to fight the Sheaffer claim .turned home, and Kraker went to Chicago to con Craig immediately result counsel, his present attorney (Kraker XQs.125-145). Shortly after Craig suddenly left then employ of the Sheaffer Pen Company, went to Chicago to execute his first application, and thereafter connected himself with the Kraker Pen Company at Kansas City. His second application was filed somewhat later. Subsequently Kraker's contract with Craig was transferred to the Kraker Pen Company. This, thereafter, is apparently the cause of the interest of Kraker in the matter; and it is apparently because of his desire to control either directly or indirectly the double bar pen that led Craig to file the application therefor. But although his application were filed early in 1914, no claims were then made which, in the examiner's opinion served to justify an interference, and the Sheaffer patent is sued November 24, 1914 made to the from the patent, and demanding the institution of Shortly thereafter amendments were Craig applications copying claims interference proceedings. No attempt will be made to discuss in detail all of the incident and circumstances which seem to require that the case be decided in favor of Sheaffer. to show Those above referred to are sufficient that under the circumstances here pre- case. However, one other will be added. There was another No. This involved Craig's application No. 821,- interference between these parties, namely, 37505. 358, also involved herein, and Sheaffer's application No. 732,087, not patent No. 1,114,052~ This was di But the application of Sheaffer upon which the said rected to certain other features of the pen. patent issued was filed before Craig entered the employ of the Sheaffer Pen Company, that is, on 18, 1912. claimed certain of these features, his preliminary November Not withstanding Craig statement set up conception as of a later date, and judgment was entered against him. Craig explains that this matter was claimed by him through in advertance, and therefore ought not to have any “'hile the may not operate seriously against Craig, it show sefi'ect on this controversy. Incident a lack of care on his part in the preparation and execution of his applications. Craig has very clearly failed to discharge the burden resting upon him, lie has not established independent inventorship, or disclosure to Sheaffer and the circumstances in my judgment areall in favor of Sheatfer; and judgment will therefore be entered in his favor.Priority of invention of me subjet matter in issue is hereby awarded to Walter A. Sheaffer,the senior party.Limit of appeal, Sept, ‘22. 1916. H. E. STAUFFER.Examiner of interferences. Aug. 22. 1916.

Edited January 15, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Roger W.]

Ramon;

 

Look, some of these case documents, the originals mind you, I have held in my own hands as the repository is outside of Chicago. Now if you choose excerpts that do not have mention of Craig that is on you as we have provided such evidence. Cherry picking your documentation to show part of the story will not prove your point whereas, we have quoted the passages that prove "CRAIG" was in reference to the son and that the holders were made by Schnell. The Barrett case is a large document and you could pull out lots of stuff but, if you ignore the facts within the case that disprove your position what is your point in referring to the trial in the first place?

 

Roger W.

Edited January 15, 2019 by Roger W.

[Lazard 20]

Observe as the first years of Harvey Craig pens the ads was concentrated in Missouri, the best selling area of Kraker, and Kansas, where was George Kraker and Harvey Craig´s factory but surprisingly? there are no ads in Fort Madison where Walter Sheaffer was working in his lever filler fountain pens; Craig pens, in these firts years was manufactured in Kansas/Missouri area and not in Fort Madison.

 

Also note the start date of the ads. Another day we will talk about the similarities of Kraker pens and Craig pens, how they resembled each other and how they were unlike to Sheaffer Pens.

Edited January 15, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

Hi, Roger,

 

Is it correct that Sheaffer was making Craig brand pens though the parts may not have been made in Fort Madison and at the same time there was another brand named Craig being made by Kraker? Is that correct?

 

Thanks

[Lazard 20]

  On 1/14/2019 at 3:57 PM, Vintagepens said:

 

 

As you and I know, your file it is not a transcript of any one proceeding; is a simple draft copy prima facie* interested of one of the parties so that using the words "testimony" and "transcription" in your article web, confusing readers, was a bad and wrong decision of yours.

 

Even assuming you were able to understand this prima facie, the alleged "testimony", that is not, was if Walter Sheaffer was manufacturing Sheaffer´S from 1912, what is true, or Walter Sheaffer was manufacturing Craig pens from 1912 , what is false, o this presumed "testimony" coming from Harvey Craig the delinquent condemned in this interference patent, or from Garrett or Kraker who were defeated too in other law suit, included in appeal, or of another third party or a mere impression of the lawyer copywriter, a draft copy Prima facie** coming from a law firm of one of the parties has less value than the humblest of the Sheaffer'S pen; It's worth nothing.

 

Without further evidence that this claim that Walter was manufacturing in 1912 to 1917 Harvey Craig pens with eyedropper, twist filler, coins filler and a (bleep) of levers ... this has no name.

 

Please rewrite your article and clean the image of Walter A. (Amos, perhaps?) Sheaffer. It is what comes.

 

Goodbye.

 

* Prima facie is a Latin phrase in absolute ablative that means "At first sight, of subsequent ones that may happen and make change of opinion or appear", which is added in the speech before an opinion or comment to implicitly clarify that you do not want risk a definitive conclusion.

 

**For more inconsistency probably they are notes of two mixed law suits and such as hearsay with the case still not closed.

Edited January 16, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

Are you saying that NO pens were ever made by Sheaffer under the Craig brand?

 

Are you also saying that what Roger and David are saying about Sheaffer was having Schnell make Craig branded pens as early as 1912 is not true?

 

Thanks!

[Vintagepens]

I really don't want to come down in favor of censorship, but this is getting ridiculous.

I simply don't have the spare time to counter historical arguments that contradict all the evidence. And yet, if not countered, there are those who will believe them -- simply because they are set out with such vehemence and such voluminous verbiage.

It's not that I'm a reflexive defender of the historical status quo. Quite the opposite, in fact: both with writing equipment history and history of other fields, my focus has been to puncture myths and to question what had been generally accepted. But if one is to make such a challenge, it had better be supported by solid evidence. Unfortunately, what we are seeing in this thread is a common beginner mistake in historical research, where the neophyte comes up with a clever idea and then digs out all the info he can find to support it. In the university context, he is then typically shot down in flames as his professor points out that he has neglected to take into consideration all the evidence that contradicts his thesis -- and a valuable lesson is learned. What is particularly unfortunate is that the student here flatly refuses to acknowledge the holes in his case. Nothing is learned; nothing is gained.