Why Craig Was A Sheaffer Sub-Brand

[FarmBoy]

Thank you Roger for posting the scans.

[FarmBoy]

I'm waiting for documentation that "Lazard" is a sub-brand of "RamonCampos".

I see a car getting loose going into the turns and figure they need a pit soon or we will have a mess in turn three...

[PenHero]

I've changed the title of this thread to "Why Craig Was A Sheaffer Sub-Brand" because it is now obvious that Craig was a Sheaffer sub-brand from the beginning and was named for Craig Sheaffer.

 

[Karmachanic]

Well that was fun. Let's move on, shall we.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Karmachanic

[Vintagepens]

I'm not sure it's been made clear, but this testimony took place in 1915.

 

I'd also like to point out that all that took place in this thread could have played out much more constructively.

As stated before, I'm all in favor of historical research that challenges accepted narratives. But challenging a narrative doesn't necessitate making that challenge personal. The number of people doing serious pen history research is tiny, and pretty much everyone involved is open-minded, generous, and communicative. Much of what we do is in fact cooperative.

It would have saved RamonCampos a great deal of time and embarrassment to have first bounced his idea off some members of the pen research community, instead of staging a grandiose challenge as a solitary crusader. If he had simply asked one of us, "are Craig pens really named after Craig Sheaffer and not Harvey Craig, and how do we know this?", he would have promptly received the explanation above. And if he had expressed an eagerness to see a copy of the trial testimony himself, he would have been sent it -- that's just how this community works.

 

Finally, let's all remember the old adage that we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. In many cases our stock of knowledge about pen history is not fully referenced. That is to say, it has not been formally published, complete with footnotes, bibliographies, and notes on sources. But that is not to say that it has not been fully researched: many researchers share information informally, many are slow to publish, many more have no desire to publish at all. For this reason, it is wise not to dismiss an established narrative too quickly -- at the very least, first try to find out what it might be based upon.

 

 

Those are three of the citations from the case. All three are from the testimony of Walter A. Sheaffer as noted on the top of the pages. It explains why he was selling a $1 pen, that the "CRAIG" was theirs, with the name being given before Harvey Craig arrived (889.579) and that they were part dropper fillers and self fillers with a slot for a coin!

 

Don't doubt that we have copies of the original documents to back up our claims.

 

Roger W.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Vintagepens

[Lazard 20]

Thanks Roger I was impatient waiting, coming from you, this simples notes (non transcription) undated from a law firm whose writes does not even know how to write "Sheaffer" nor does he/she know who-says-what.

 

I already told here that yours confusion obeyed a one bad reading of a diffuse and confused non-official notes lacking of historical validity and that go against the pure reality (1) Let's see what A says

(A) "I was the SOLE owner of the company ... having no partners connected with me"

Roger, tell us; when was Walter Sheaffer, if Walter is A, the sole owner of Walter Sheaffer Co.?; I will tell you: NEVER

 

Do you already know who is A? Do you know who is asking to him? Do you know why A, lying, replies that he was not manufacturing lever filler? You have it in just front you and you do not see it.

 

(1) Very inadequate and frankly unfair for to slander a business man. Additionally, tomorrow, I will go back to destroy the veracity of anothers "falses testimonies" of this papers.

(2) By the way, lack the cover of this booknotes that I hope with the same impatience.

 

See you tomorrow

Edited January 17, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

Thanks Roger I was impatient waiting, coming from you, this simples notes (non transcription) from a law firm whose writes does not even know how to write "Sheaffer" nor does he/she know who-says-what.

 

I already told here that yours confusion obeyed a one bad reading of a diffuse and confused non-official notes lacking of historical validity and that go against the pure reality (1) Let's see what A says

 

(A) "I was the SOLE owner of the company ... having no partners connected with me"

 

Roger, tell us; when was Walter Sheaffer, if Walter is A, the sole owner of Walter Sheaffer Co.?; I will tell you: NEVER

 

(1) Very inadequate and frankly unfair for to slander a business man. Additionally, tomorrow, I will go back to destroy the veracity of another content of this papers.

 

See you tomorrow

 

 

 

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

It sounds like you are unfamiliar with US court reporting and how transcripts are done. I happen to have had family in that business.

 

The document pages Roger posted are from a transcript of sworn testimony by Walter A. Sheaffer. “Q” means Question, and “A” means ANSWER. The witness is stated at the beginning of the session of testimony and presented at the top of each page in the transcript, in this case, Walter A. Sheaffer. The statements, under oath, are subject to charges of perjury if false.

 

Walter A. Sheaffer, not Roger, is testifying at the time being asked about, that he was the sole owner of the W. A. Sheaffer Pen Company. How is that not true?

 

So far you are making no sense and proving nothing.

 

Please stop.

[JonSzanto]

Thanks to David, Roger, Daniel, Jim, et al, for an illuminating view into 100-year-old history. Please don't take humorous asides, used as a personal coping mechanism, for a lack of appreciation of the good and generous scholarship at play. Indeed, as David so well writes, it is one of the aspects of this community and it's sharing that I value the most.

[Lazard 20]

Sostenella y no enmendalla. You have it in front of you and you do not see it!; Brown, Sheaffer´s lawyer, was in a REDIRECT EXAMINATION so Brown, was asking to a witness of guilty Craig (& Kraker) part, or to Harvey Craig himself!. but also does not make sense that Walter was A (answering) denying that he was manufacturing lever filler because everyone knew what he was doing lever filler -I'm obliged to remind you that Sheaffer was manufacturing lever filler!, who'd say it!. He won in all instances, no judge would have allowed to hear him to say that he did not manufacture lever filler...nor would make sense because he, Walter, was there, precisely, defending his lever filler.

 

As we had seen, and also could confirm the cover of these papers, its are not a transcript, instead they are secondhand notes (notes of notes) and a strong example of the confusion produced by lack of knowledge of Procedural Law and a simple error, typo, or notes, or of heard, by a possesive adjective and a clumsy reading, because there are answers to A (who answers) that clearly show that A is not Walter, instead is the interrogation that Brown, Sheaffer's lawyer, is making to a suspect, and finally declared guilty by the court, for to manufacture Craig pen lever filler (naturally A denies it by lying; no one is obliged to testify against himself) infringing Walter Sheaffer's patent just as the sentences clearly confirmed.

 

I´m goint to prepare the photographic composition that shows, from a simple glance, who is really A and demonstrates in an undoubted way his false testimony.

Edited January 18, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Roger W.]

[Roger W.]

[Roger W.]

Ramon;

 

You mistake what these are. These are the actual court records held in the Chicago depository. The notations supplied on these records are the careful notes of the attorney that first brought them to light. Like it or not this is the quality of the actual court transcripts from 100 years ago. The second page is that of Walter A. Sheaffer being sworn in to give testimony (518.208). The responses on all but page 50.774 marked "A" are the actual words spoken by Walter A. Sheaffer in response to "Q" which is either his attorney or the attorney for the defense. I have personally perused the actual documents at the repository and can assure you that these are the genuine court records for the case.

 

Roger W.

[Lazard 20]

 

Roger, who can believe that, with the official information that has reached us, we would find out that Walter Sheaffer manufactured safeties, coin filler, eyedroppers, or levers and clips very stranger to his own patents and we were not going to find out but on a paper in a drawer forgotten?

 

Why did all of Craig's pens activity in those early years focus on Missouri where Harvey Craig and Kraker were manufacturing and not in Iowa were Sheaffer´S was manufacturing?

 

None can believe that Sheaffer created with a 14-year-old boy, hiding his provenance, a sub-brand when Sheaffer´S was already a sub-brand in those years? A boy 14-year-old that would be at school and only helping his father run errands or learn to drill levers only some Sunday. A boy whose father would not give him a second name, neither patents nor origin and infringing patents of other filling systems or clip. No parent wants a brand nor a situation like that for their child. Craig Sheaffer also did not tell us that he had a brand since childhood; neither Walter Sheaffer told us to create a brand for his son.

Walter told us that he sold watches, jewelries, pianos, horses, lever filler pens or chickens, that he went hungry, cold and difficult, he told us about his boyish antics or how he consolidated High Point or his business philosophy ... but he never told us what he did in the beginning other pen than his lever filler pens.

Does not appear in the documents of the Interference Patent nor in the lawsuit vs. Garrett and Kraker nor in the Kraker´s Apelatión nothing that can even suspect that Sheaffer did not do other things than his own lever filler pen. Three crushing victories for Sheaffer and only spoken in those sentences of the Sheaffer´S lever filler, years being investigated and spied and those thousands of evidences contrary to your affirmation and you want to knock them down with an unofficial paper where nothing is said: it will not be possible.

Roger, look this topic; has almost 4,000 readings (plus some others in other pen forums) and only those who are involved in the matter and three close friends of them, in absence of arguments, defend the indefensible. Those who do not write will not tell you because you have made many and very good contributions to Pendom and they will apologize you for this mistake, but insisting on it and keep the leftovers of doubt about Walter's person in a nonsense does not do you any favors.

Edited January 18, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Glenn-SC]

Those who do not write will not tell you because you have made many and very good contributions to Pendom and they will apologize you for this mistake, but insisting on it and keep the leftovers of doubt about Walter's person in a nonsense does not do you any favors.

 

And you, Sir, should not dare to speak for "those who do not write" nor to assume that they support your arguments and (quite frankly) your insults.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Glenn-SC

[PenHero]

 

Roger, who can believe that, with the official information that has reached us, we would find out that Walter Sheaffer manufactured safeties, coin filler, eyedroppers, or levers and clips very stranger to his own patents and we were not going to find out but on a paper in a drawer forgotten?

 

Why did all of Craig's pens activity in those early years focus on Missouri where Harvey Craig and Kraker were manufacturing and not in Iowa were Sheaffer´S was manufacturing?

 

None can believe that Sheaffer created with a 14-year-old boy, hiding his provenance, a sub-brand when Sheaffer´S was already a sub-brand in those years? A boy 14-year-old that would be at school and only helping his father run errands or learn to drill levers only some Sunday. A boy whose father would not give him a second name, neither patents nor origin and infringing patents of other filling systems or clip. No parent wants a brand nor a situation like that for their child. Craig Sheaffer also did not tell us that he had a brand since childhood; neither Walter Sheaffer told us to create a brand for his son.

Walter told us that he sold watches, jewelries, pianos, horses, lever filler pens or chickens, that he went hungry, cold and difficult, he told us about his boyish antics or how he consolidated High Point or his business philosophy ... but he never told us what he did in the beginning other pen than his lever filler pens.

Does not appear in the documents of the Interference Patent nor in the lawsuit vs. Garrett and Kraker nor in the Kraker´s Apelatión nothing that can even suspect that Sheaffer did not do other things than his own lever filler pen. Three crushing victories for Sheaffer and only spoken in those sentences of the Sheaffer´S lever filler, years being investigated and spied and those thousands of evidences contrary to your affirmation and you want to knock them down with an unofficial paper where nothing is said: it will not be possible.

Roger, look this topic; has almost 4,000 readings (plus some others in other pen forums) and only those who are involved in the matter and three close friends of them, in absence of arguments, defend the indefensible. Those who do not write will not tell you because you have made many and very good contributions to Pendom and they will apologize you for this mistake, but insisting on it and keep the leftovers of doubt about Walter's person in a nonsense does not do you any favors.

 

 

 

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

By Walter A. Sheaffer's own testimony, he made Craig pens that were not lever fillers including eye-dropper and coin filler types. Please see the highlighted section of the deposition. You are repeatedly ignoring this. The reason is also stated. Craig pens were sold for $1 and Sheaffer had made a policy to not sell Sheaffer brand pens for less than $2.50 in order to protect the value of his pens.

 

 

Your assertion that "all of Craig's pens activity in those early years focus on Missouri" is based on newspaper advertisements by pen sellers that you have found on the internet. You can't make this claim because you and we don't know every place that Craig pens were sold. You don't have 100% of the information. No one does. Also, the advertisements do not prove who made Craig pens.

 

Why can't Walter A. Sheaffer name a pen after his son? The Mercedes-Benz brand was named after a 12 year old girl. No one is making the claim that Craig himself was making pens. You are also ignoring that Walter A. Sheaffer's own testimony states that he named Craig pens after his son Craig.

 

Why would Craig branded pens be discussed in the Kraker lawsuit if it was about Sheaffer's double-bar lever patent? Holding onto that patent was key to Sheaffer's business. Craig brand pens would have been irrelevant to that case.

 

You have not supplied any evidence supporting anyone other than Sheaffer making Craig pens.

[Vintagepens]

I'm pretty sure that the high traffic for this thread is less a reflection of widespread popular interest in the minutiae of early Sheaffer history than inability to avert one's eyes from a spectacular disaster.
And while those who have delved deep into Sheaffer history are, as noted, collegial, we are hardly close friends. We share an esoteric interest, but we are very much independent thinkers, ready to debate with each other over the interpretation of the material we study -- which is often not nearly so clear-cut as the matters under discussion here.

One thing that we do share is a willingness to accept disproof. It may sting to admit that one was wrong, but errors are inevitable when working on puzzles lacking many of their pieces. Unfortunately, it seems that RamonCampos is utterly unable to accept disproof, no matter how decisive the evidence.

 

Roger, look this topic; has almost 4,000 readings (plus some others in other pen forums) and only those who are involved in the matter and three close friends of them, in absence of arguments, defend the indefensible. Those who do not write will not tell you because you have made many and very good contributions to Pendom and they will apologize you for this mistake, but insisting on it and keep the leftovers of doubt about Walter's person in a nonsense does not do you any favors.

[pajaro]

Così è se vi pare.

[TSherbs]

I thought this thread already got closed?

[Lazard 20]

To whom it may concert I will say that Daniel Kirchheimer who is following this topic with great interest, so much so that he visits my profile, as well he has not written here nevertheless has decided to participate in this other forum about the same matter that concerns us here.

 

https://estilograficas.mforos.com/1176622/13010872-el-caso-craig-walter-sheaffer-era-honesto-y-asi-lo-proclamo/

 

an image of that forum:

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Lazard 20]

I thought this thread already got closed?

 

 

Why? They can not bear the heavy burden of proof**,

 

I) Those who have been asserting that The Papers - I call them that - is a transcript, on contrary, not; these papers are not a transcript and not have, apparently, author nor authentication nor signature nor stamp, adicionally it also has errors on dates and people appearing as you can see.

 

II) Those who affirm that the judicial decision favorable to Walter Sheaffer seem to have been due more to the talent of Sheaffer's lawyers than to Walter Sheaffer's own reasons and merits in the case (click here for more info),

 

III) Equally nothing proves those who sow shadows of doubt or claim that Walter Sheaffer gave a quite different image to that of an honest entrepreneur and inventor (click here),

 

IV) Others I say of those who affirm that in the first years, in 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917, specifically(1), the Craig fountain pens were being manufactured under direction of Sheaffer'S in Fort Madison. Levers and holders are different a variety difficult to understand in a company just started and with little money.

 

I do affirm nothing, I simply request proof of what others claims about the honesty of Walter Sheaffer and the production of Craig pens in Fort Madison during 1914/1917 when everything points to Kansas, Missouri, where was manufacturing Craig and Kraker and far away, 280 miles, from Ft. Madision as I have proved with the ads provided here, in this topic(***), far away and in a case that affects fountain pen history the demand for evidence more tangible that a paper circuntantial and indirect should be allowed, said this respecting the right of admission of FPN, of course.

 

I have more reasonable doubts pending publication, in any case and respecting FPN decision, I would like it not to close this topic without allowing the presentation of the conclusions to the two conflicting opinions; that no people, I add.

 

(1) * I clarify: I do not want to refer myself after 1918 when Walter Sheaffer'S acquired the Kraker facilities in Kansas City and subrogated his employees - the Kansas factory was operational a few years after which the equipment and employees was grouped in Fort Madison. i´m interesting in this topic in Graig Pens manufactured between 1914 and 1918.

 

** Literary license. content in text Judge Landis´ sentence blaming against Harvey Craig.

 

*** I would like to find ads next to Fort Madison but all I found are from Kansas and Missouri; thats the reality.

 

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by RamonCampos