Boston Fountain Pen Company

[antoniosz]

Nothing serious about the Boston decision (exactly as Roger mentioned before).

 

"Ex PARTE BOSTON FOUNTAIN PEN Co

Decided May 31 1905

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT UNIFORMITY REQUIRED The signature to the drawing and the statement in a trade application should correspond. The question is not whether either or both signatures are legal but there must be uniformity.

On PETITION

TRADE MARK FOR FOUNTAIN PENS

Messrs Crosby A Gregory for the applicant

ALLEN Commissioner: This is a petition from the action of the Examiner of Trade Marks requiring that the signatures to the drawing and the statement correspond. The signature to the statement is Boston Fountain Pen Co whereas that to the drawing is Boston Fountain Pen Company. The petitioner cites many authorities to the effect that Co is a well understood abbreviation of the word Company and cites many others to the effect that such abbreviation of the real name in the signature to a note deed or other instrument would not render the instrument invalid There has been no contention that the registration if granted upon the present application would be void because of the abbreviation of the signature to the statement and therefore the argument and citation of authorities upon the question of validity is without force It may be said however that these very authorities show that the question has been raised at various times and may be raised again. It is one of the functions of this Office to avoid uncertainty in instruments issued and therefore tlie authorities cited justify this Office in requiring uniformity in the name. There seems to be no good reason why the name should not be the same wherever it appeal's in the instrument and it is deemed best to have a uniform rule that it shall. The petition is denied"

 

[Roger W.]

http://sheafferflattops.com/images/Logo.JPG

Logo from 1908 receipt - much better than the trade-mark drawing. Trade-mark is the building and the pen.

 

OK, I found the trademark! I had to scan thru about 2,000 trademarks but, I found it. George, I'm loath to give it up but, it is 46,736. Very interesting. Applied for April 8, 1905 (denied initially as we know May 31, 1905 and registered October 3, 1905) and the firm consisted of Charles E. Brandt and his two sons only at this point. The trademark is the old Massachusetts State House with an enormous pen sticking thru it. "The trade-mark has been continuously used in our business and that of our predecessors since October 1903." So I think we can safely assume that Boston takes over from a predecessor in 1904 - probably from Colonial as they have been proposed as a candidate and I haven't heard another. If there was not a predecessor this language would not have been in the document so I think that a clearer indication of how Eberstein came over.

 

Eberstein's first patent assigned to Charles Brandt originated October 1902 so were patents assigned on the outset or sometime prior to granting which would be January 26, 1904? As all patents are assigned to Charles Brandt and not Boston we still don't have an exact start date for Boston but it is narrowed to after October 1903 and before December 1904 (the first ad).

 

Roger W.

[rhr]

OK, I found the trademark! I had to scan thru about 2,000 trademarks but, I found it. George, I'm loath to give it up but, it is 46,736.

Sorry that I sent you scurrying through all those trademarks, but I found it as well when I was doing the initial research for the patent book. It's in the Official Gazette list of patents, designs, and trademarks published in the Scientific American magazine, which is on microfilm. And Roger, I know the feeling. I scanned through millions of line entries to find the roughly 11,325 patents, designs, and trademarks in the book, and I also am loath to give them up. You should have asked me, but I didn't want to rob you of the pleasure of finding it yourself. ;~)

 

You say that the father was Charles E. Brandt. I always understood that Charles Brandt was the father, and Charles E. Brandt and George F. Brandt were the sons. You also said you scanned through the trademarks. Did you use an online database? It couldn't have been TESS, because the Boston trademark isn't available on that site. Did you use the hardcopy at a patent depository library? If so, I envy you.

 

I have a picture of one of those receipts as well, perhaps from an Ebay auction. This one was dated 1907. Those 19th-and-early-20th century engraved letterheads are finely detailed. I always wondered what that building in the trademark was, although I assumed it had something to do with the city of Boston's history. Has anyone found the image in use by the Colonial Pen Co.? The enormous pen sticking through it is reminiscent of the Waterman's trademark emblem.

 

Those citations in the trademarks of the dates from which they have been "continuously in use since" are like gold! From the evidence of the trademark, I think it's safe to assume that Boston is in business around, and probably a bit before, October 1903, although it didn't really get rolling until 1904. Here's another reason to propose Colonial as a candidate for the predecessor to Boston. Another book from Google Patents, Obsolete American Securities and Corporations, Illustrated with Photographs of Important Repudiated Bonds, by Roland Mulville Smythe, 1911, states that Colonial Pen Co., which was incorporated in Maine, had "three years' franchise taxes unpaid in 1903", probably the year it ceased business under that name. I concur that the start date for Boston can be narrowed to sometime around October 1903, and definitely well before December 1904.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

Edited June 22, 2009 by rhr

[Roger W.]

George;

 

One wonders why you ask the date and number of the trademark two entries of yours up if you knew it already? You may be right on Charles E. being the son, it was just worded in that order on the trade-mark so I took the first name for the father. Now if that is the case there may be something to the argument that the sons took over later as receipts in 1908 are stamped Boston...and C. E. Brandt... Both being Charles is going to lead to some confusion if it hasn't happened already.

 

Anyway, I take from the language that the predecessor exists after October 1903. I'm getting what records Maine has on Colonial Pen from their division of corporations. I don't expect much but, it will be all of the official records.

 

Now, what have we one the very quite Colonial Pen of Baltimore besides it burning down early in 1904? Lancaster is using the first Eberstein patent (a filling system that Boston doesn't need so the assignment to Lancaster is no big deal). Is there anything else on Baltimore?

 

Roger W.

[rhr]

One wonders why you ask the date and number of the trademark if you knew it already?

"One" wonders why, or do you wonder why? ;~) Well, to spur you on to find the trademark image and specification. Now that you have found it, I think you have found everything in the USPTO on Boston. Now, if I had given you the number, would you, same as I, have tried to find the imagery? Of course you would have.

 

I also said above that all I had access to was a bare-bones, basic list from the Official Gazette that was published in the Scientific American magazine. That list consisted of the number, name of applicant, title of the category to which it applied, and the date. It didn't have full trademark imagery or specification. So for the Boston trademark this is what I have. That's all that was there in the Sci.Am. list.

46,736 Boston Fountain Pen Company, "Fountain Pens", Oct 3, 1905.

 

From the information you supplied, I added an annotation saying it consisted of an image of a building with a pen sticking through it, the date it was first used, and also that it was used by a predecessor, possibly the Colonial Pen Co., and that it was reminiscent of the L. E. Waterman US trademark no. 37,762.

 

As for Charles and Charles E., I looked in the 1910 US Census and found a Charles Brandt living in Boston, 57 years old, born about 1853, married to Clara J., also 57 years old, and living with sons Charles E., 27 years old, and George F., 25 years old. In another source, I found George's exact birth date, Dec 28, 1883, and death date, Dec 21, 1973. In the Boston business directory for 1891, Charles the father is listed as a clerk & salesman.

 

Here's what I have in my penmakers database for Colonial in Baltimore. The address of Lancaster Fountain Pen Co. in New York in the 1880s-90s was 212 Broadway Ave., "a few doors down the street" from L. E. Waterman. He got his hard rubber from H. P. & E. Day in Seymour, Conn. until L. E. Waterman forced Day to stop selling to Lancaster late in the 1890s, so he "put all [his] machinery on a boat and sailed it down to Baltimore". The name was changed to Colonial Fountain Pen Co., and it was located at 23-25 West Fayette St., Baltimore, Md., 1900-04. The Colonial Fountain Pen Co. and the headquarters of Lancaster Pen Co. were destroyed in the great Baltimore fire of Feb 7, 1904. The name was changed to Warren N. Lancaster Co., and it is later located in Springfield, Mass., from the evidence of the imprint on that nib that Antonios mentioned. [This is around 1915-17, from the evidence in Google Books that Antonios mentions in a later post.] He was doing business at 714 North Eutaw St., Baltimore, at least by 1917. The company is listed under "Colonial" in the Jeweler's trademark book of 1922, p.288, but there is no record, and the company is out of business by 1925.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

Edited June 23, 2009 by rhr

[antoniosz]

George, actually there is another evidence that Lancaster was located at some point in Springfield, but it is late in 1916-17:

 

In "Abstract of the Certificates of Corporations Organized Under the General Law of Massachussetts Together With The ANNUAL RETURNS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 110 OF THE REVISED LAWS CHAPTER 742 OF The Acts Of 1914 And The BUSINESS CORPORATION Law For the year ending on November 30, 1916", PREPARED BY THE SECRETARY Of The COMMONWEALTH Boston 1917

 

"Warren N. Lancaster Pen, Cert. Filed: Mar. 23 1916,Date of Meeting: Jan. 18 1916, Date of Statement: Dec. 31 1916, Authorized capital stock, $5000, Merchandise and Material In Stock $4549, Cash and Debt receivable: $147"

 

In Acts and Resolves passed by the General Court By Massachusetts,, 1917

"Warren N. Lancaster Pen" dissolved.

Edited June 23, 2009 by antoniosz

[rhr]

actually there is evidence that Lancaster was located at some point in Springfield, but it is late in 1916-17.

"Warren N. Lancaster Pen" dissolved 1917.

Thanks, Antonios. To tell you the truth, I didn't have an exact date for the Springfield nib, and it looked early. Now, it appears that it was late, so I'll have to correct it. There is also a reference there in Google Books for Lancaster in Springfield in 1915, and he may have been there earlier, too.

 

The other thing is, even though he was out of business by 1925, the year of the Time article, he WAS included in the Jeweler's Trade list of pen companies in 1922 after all. I forgot to check Colonial because it was way too late for that company, but there it is, listed under Colonial on p.288, Lancaster listing ! So it must have gone out of business between 1922 and 1925.

 

But this is all a digression from Boston and Colonial.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

Edited June 23, 2009 by rhr

[Johnny Appleseed]

To continue the digression - there is a brief ad in the New York Times, Nov 11, 1923, PX12

 

XMAS Fountain Pens,

GIFTS. Factory Prices

$1 to $15 Est. 1879

Pens repaired while waiting. Catalog

Lancaster's Pens, 239 5th Ave.

 

Might not be the same Lancaster, but I thought the 1879 date was indicitive that it was the same. Maybe this was a New York reseller, or maybe it was his last business.

 

(BTW - searching for Lancaster Pen gets you a whole lot of results for Lancaster Penn).

[Roger W.]

As we discussed sometime along Boston and Boston Safety are about the same thing. But, were they using anything before the Boston Safety Pen nib? In a database of 85 pens some without nibs or clearly the wrong nib we have of Boston nibs almost wholely consist of Boston Safety save for one. On a little mottled pen with a #3 nib we have what is presumably the oldest style nib used by Boston. How early they changed the nib is hard to tell but the 1904, 1906 and 1911 ads clearly have this early nib illustrated - though by 1911 this could just be old art work given to Twentieth Century Magazine for their promotion. Note the 1906 ad encourages you to write for a catalogue...c'mon where's the catalogue!

 

Roger W.

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/BFPCnib.jpg

Earliest Boston Nib

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/BFPCpen.jpg

The little mottled that the #3 is on with patent date on the cap.

[rhr]

Actually, the 1904 ad also mentions a catalogue, so there may be two different ones out there. C'mon, where's the first catalogue? The best bet for finding either one might be the Boston area, and the whole "colonial" region of the New England states. But some may have been sent further abroad.

 

Thanks for the images of that nib and its nice little rmhr pen, Roger. Have you at least heard of any other early nibs? Try Fultz and Lotfi.

 

George Kovalenko.

 

[pen2paper]

do you have fleabay searches tagged for advertising catalogs?

(hope you don't mind my spying on your research..it's fascinating)

[Roger W.]

P2P if it is Boston ephemera on EBay it does not pass me by - I won the Boston pen on Ebay today. Lotfi may have pens though I've not heard back from her. I'll look over Fultz's Bostons next time I'm downtown Chicago. There are two other collections of Boston's that are probably more important than those. The only thing close to a catalogue known is a pamphlet circa 1916 that has a few models on it - shown below. There is a 1916 ad that touts Boston's use of the lever as new and since these have levers, 1916. It is a Christmas piece put out by a Jeweler and Optician in York, PA.

 

Roger W.

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/Boston1916.JPG

[Wahlnut]

Wow, you guys are really going to town on this. GREAT!

 

No need to call these discussions digressions because it only makes sense since Boston Fountain Pens are a direct precursor of the Wahl brand.

 

So, therefore, Unless I get corrected by the Admins, (they woudn't do that would they to such a peaceful and civilized forum), from now on Boston Fountain Pens are an included topic of focus interest on this forum.

 

Rock on!

Syd

[antoniosz]

One more tidbit from Colonial Pen Co from The Saint Paul globe MN - November 11, 1900

 

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b325/azavalia/TheSaintPaulglobeMN-November111900-.jpg

 

[Roger W.]

Man, we should really edit the title of this thread as we've been on the front end of Boston almost the whole while. So keeping on the front end there are some things you just can't Google. Today I received the incorporation papers for Colonial from the State of Maine. Not a lot of additional info but here it is. They incorporated April 22, 1899 with 3 shares issued of 200, capital stock totalling $20,000. Now we know they don't file their franchise tax and get desolved but they did not just incorporate and go away. On August 2, 1900 they increased the stock to $32,000 voted by the 173 shares outstanding (so some investment was actively being made). The additional $12,000 was preferred stock with cumulative dividends of 8%. There are five pages to the corporate history of Colonial as far as the State of Maine is concerned and no additional facts are to be had beyond what I have disclosed, no new names or addresses. The corporate purpose is a bit amusing - " to buy, sell and deal in all kinds of stationary supplies and novelties..." it doesn't mention pens at all, I guess pens are just so much stationary.

 

Roger W.

[Roger W.]

Another piece of what happened after the sale - NOTHING!

 

Wahl advertised for help wanted in the Chicago Tribune as the Wahl Adding Machine Co. for Rubber Turners, Gold Pen Grinders and Foutain Pen Setters "to work on the famous Boston Safety Fountain Pen". This was ran October 28, 1917! So we have slightly conflicting information as the "Tempoint" trademark claims that it was in use since October 15, 1917. Still, nothing was going on at Wahl for pen production 10 months after purchasing Boston. Keeran might have gotten President Roberts to get on board to buy Boston but Wahl either had no plans for a pen or problems with what they had bought.

 

Roger W.

[Roger W.]

I received an important addition to the story today. From the Boston Archives comes the tax records for 1917 (April 4th). The valuation of the business located at 319 Washington was for $1,000. The Wahl Adding Machine Company is registered on the rolls as doing business as Boston Fountain Pen Co. noting that it was closed in 1918 and moved to Chicago. This leaves little doubt that Wahl purchased the whole works and not just the assets or part of the assets. As far as what Moore got from Boston we can only prove they got some of Boston's personnel. There is no direct evidence that they got anything else. Since some of Moore's early pens are identical to Boston it is a safe assumption that pens were made for them by Boston or that Moore got templates to produce such pens. Anything further such as speculation that Moore got the heavy equipment is not supported with any facts and is per speculation at this point. Moore presumably had high speed screw machines as they had operated for many years as American Fountain Pen Co., why would they need machinery from Boston? Wahl was making pencils and it is not clear that the same machines could be used to turn hard rubber but, with the production demands for the pencil it seems unlikely that these machines would have the capacity to also produce pens (though Wahl admits that there were production problems in the early years which were rectified sometime around 1921). Transporting heavy machines from Boston to Chicago could have been easily done by rail so the supposed high cost of moving the machinery seems unlikely a reason to simply have sold them to Moore. In any event, I defy anyone to show me the proof of such a sale (BTW, there is nothing on the sale of Boston to Wahl in the Parker archives so no help to anyone there). Wahl does indeed appear to have gotten the lot of Boston as tempoints have the Brandt patents on them as well as use the roller clips so no patent problems existed here either even though these were held by other concerns than Boston or Brandt. Wahl Tempoints are identical to Boston so that Wahl had copies of templates as well so intellectual property was not well protected during the sale at any rate.

 

Roger W.

[Wahlnut]

Way to go Roger! This is very important information, While the transfer of ownership of the Boston Fountain Pen Company business as an entity to Wahl seems pretty conclusive, it may not completely answer all the questions about machinery, or other items sold by Wahl after acquisition of BSFC. While that may remain an open issue, I am happy as can be about this information and I agree with you that unless other information arises to dispute the lock stock and barrel concept and all of same whooshed to Chicago, that this is the new state of the art on this subject. This would also help explain why a single display case mentioned in other threads on this forum could/would have contemporaneous signage on the glass thereof for both Eversharp Pencils on one side and Boston Safety Fountain Pens on the other. Very Cool!

 

Syd