Represent The White Dot Something?

[Lazard 20]

You're lying. It was clear to everyone reading this thread and the related threads for over two years -- including you -- that I was referring to a Sheaffer's ad. Daniel say.

 

Lazard say: Wrong. very wrong and uneducated. Unthinkable in a Sheaffer'S authority. If you go down that road I will not answer you. You have to prove you has filed this limited picture (where even I couldn´t see if arrow was a nib as finally has been), as complete picture before nowadays or Sheaffer'S bullseye mention or Sheaffer'S ad mention but it seems that it is easier for you insult and to try offend others. The fact that you resort to mere insults does not speak well of you, it clearly talk about your lack of arguments. It´s a pity!! Bye, bye, this gets ugly.

 

So finally, although for effects of to be a bullseye source of inspiration of WD or not don´´t affect that has one or more ads with color, where all or nearly all in which represents Sheaffer'S after it appearance is white, I tell you..

1. I thought your bull's-eye was not Sheaffer'S and the fact that I wrote:

"THERE ARE MANY BULL´S EYE ... BUT NOT ALL ARE SHEAFFER'S" will make believe to people bona fide ..

2. Obviously, if I had known your ad was a Sheaffer'S ad from frst days I´d have used in my favor this ad by to be another bull's-eye of perfection additional to foundational catalog before WD and I did not.

 

3. As an intelligent FPN users alert me could be an explanation for wich you have shown for two years this target only partially. He thinks the sequence lacks rhythm. So the sense done by the illustrator would to have the following sense:

The target is completely red and white and the secuence is:

Red-target
White-target
Red-target
White-target
Red-target
White-target
Red-target
White-bullseye. There are white in the bulls eye.
Black-bullseye. Ink of nib fountain pen.

You will know why you don't shown the entire sequence in your photo, nor Sheaffer´s name nor sentence "Bull´s eye of perfectión" I dont need any explication, I dont want any explication, no longer care about your explanations... not your bad writing style -in its double meaning-

 

http://s22.postimg.org/m3g3bweu5/Black_Bullseye_Detail.jpg

 

Edited January 22, 2015 by Lazard 20

[kirchh]

 

You're lying. It was clear to everyone reading this thread and the related threads for over two years -- including you -- that I was referring to a Sheaffer's ad. Daniel say.

 

Lazard say: Wrong. very wrong and uneducated. Unthinkable in a Sheaffer'S authority. If you go down that road I will not answer you. You have to prove you has filed this limited picture (where even I couldn´t see if arrow was a nib as finally has been), as complete picture before nowadays or Sheaffer'S bullseye mention or Sheaffer'S ad mention but it seems that it is easier for you insult and to try offend others. The fact that you resort to mere insults does not speak well of you, it clearly talk about your lack of arguments. It´s a pity!! Bye, bye, this gets ugly.

 

http://s22.postimg.org/m3g3bweu5/Black_Bullseye_Detail.jpg

 

 

 

Lazard: You have been deeply dishonest, and you continue to try to evade and distract from the central point by issuing an increasing stream of false statements about what I have written.

 

The fact of the matter is that for over two years you have known, as have the readers of FPN, that when shown in color, Sheaffer's bull's eye is black. For over two years you have evaded addressing this fact, clinging blindly to your claim that Sheaffer's Bull's Eye of Perfection was white, just like the White Dot. You have been asked directly about this fact repeatedly over the past two-plus years, and you have not had the courage to directly address it. That lack of integrity persists up to the present moment, where you have decided to resort to frank dishonesty rather than accept the reality you know exists, and with "bye bye," you run away and hide, which is unsurprising, given the position you now find yourself in.

 

Not one person on this forum -- not one -- has had an iota of confusion about whether my description was of a Sheaffer ad. Your claims to the contrary are simply fabrications.

 

And the bull's eye is black.

 

Not white.

 

Your claim fails.

 

--Daniel

Edited January 22, 2015 by kirchh

[Happy Harry]

The bulls eye certainly looks black, or at worst a very dark blue/black....while possible the target theory could have been part of the eventual WD development it does appear highly unlikely on what's been presented. That a target and the slogans used seems more marketing than anything else, quite catchy too.

[ANM]

If one point being made is that Sheaffer's bullseye is still being used in current times, where is it? All I see are white dots in all these examples, one of which is a green jade flat top but with a ring on top so they put the white dot, not a bullseye, on the side.

 

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii101/matthewsno/DSCN2252_zpslmys1itz.jpg

[kirchh]

 

1. I thought your bull's-eye was not Sheaffer'S and the fact that I wrote:

 

"THERE ARE MANY BULL´S EYE ... BUT NOT ALL ARE SHEAFFER'S" will make believe to people bona fide ..

 

False.

 

You knew it was a Sheaffer's bull's eye. Here's the proof:

 

I wrote,

 

"Sheaffer used a multiple-ring bull's eye with the center circle in black (when depicted in color)"

 

To which you replied,

 

"Thank you for recognizing this."

 

And, of course, over two years ago, you read this exchange:

 

Roger wrote,

 

"It would be interesting to have the actual cover [of the early Sheaffer catalog showing a target and 'Bull's Eye of Perfection'] as the one we have is a black and white photocopy."

To which I replied,

 

"True. The detail I posted is from the only color image I know of that includes that imagery and slogan, and the center is dark while the next ring is red."

Your dishonesty knows no bounds, apparently.

 

I dont need any explication, I dont want any explication, no longer care about your explanations... not your bad writing style -in its double meaning-

 

I'd avoid comparisons of our respective writing styles; it really won't accrue to your benefit. In any event, it appears you are now abandoning the discussion, which is completely understandable given all the facts that have been produced. Your speculation -- and that's all it is -- has almost certainly lost ground since you first articulated it over two years ago.

 

Though before you leave, you really should correct all your errors in the graphic you keep posting. You'll be intentionally misleading readers. Why won't you simply fix those mistakes?

 

--Daniel

[abw9259]

I have no dog in this fight and I refuse to read all of the prior posts, although I have read many of them, but while searching for answers I discovered a picture of the early Sheaffer's logo which was an arrow pointed down through the letter "S". This of course in no way proves or disproves the whether the white dot symbolizes a bulls eye however when taken in conjunction with the white dot, the multiple ads with pens posted as darts towards a bulls eye, and the use of an arrow as a marketing symbol would seem to suggest a possible continuity in advertising symbolism lending credence to the idea that a white dot could be a bulls eye deconstructed to its simplest form to suggest and or symbolize prior Sheaffer's advertising.

 

http://www.vintagepens.com/first_Sheaffers.htm (scroll to the bottom)

 

But then again I'm just a lowly vest wearing yokel unschooled in proper places to shove my Tuckaway.

[kirchh]

I have no dog in this fight and I refuse to read all of the prior posts, although I have read many of them, but while searching for answers I discovered a picture of the early Sheaffer's logo which was an arrow pointed down through the letter "S". This of course in no way proves or disproves the whether the white dot symbolizes a bulls eye however when taken in conjunction with the white dot, the multiple ads with pens posted as darts towards a bulls eye, and the use of an arrow as a marketing symbol would seem to suggest a possible continuity in advertising symbolism lending credence to the idea that a white dot could be a bulls eye deconstructed to its simplest form to suggest and or symbolize prior Sheaffer's advertising.

 

http://www.vintagepens.com/first_Sheaffers.htm (scroll to the bottom)

 

But then again I'm just a lowly vest wearing yokel unschooled in proper places to shove my Tuckaway.

 

If you're not going to read the prior posts -- refuse to do so, in fact -- you'll have no idea whether the logo you saw has been shown and discussed for over two years on this subject. You'll also not know about the yawning, decade-long gap between the extremely brief appearance of that imprint around 1912 (only a handful of such pens are even known to exist) and associated imagery around the same time and the creation of the White Dot in 1924, with no arrow, bull's eye, or target imagery used by Sheaffer in the interim. Furthermore, there are not "multiple ads with pens posted as darts towards a bullseye;" in fact, there is no bull's eye at all in any Sheaffer ad that has been shown for the White Dot era, and there is exactly one ad image that includes arrows, published three years after the White Dot was introduced.

 

--Daniel

Edited January 23, 2015 by kirchh

[abw9259]

Sorry, I spent all day reading and when I get home I prefer to look at the pictures.

 

I have looked at the posts if not read them in their entirety and I have not seen any prior posting of the arrow logo. While you are correct there are no ads with pens posted towards a full scale target bulls eye there are pictures extracted from ads and catalogs with pens pointed towards a white dot as though it were a bulls eye. Further before you chastise me for not reading the posts before commenting you didn't check the link I posted otherwise you would know the imprint on the pen is not from 1912.

[kirchh]

Sorry, I spent all day reading and when I get home I prefer to look at the pictures.

 

That's fine, but if you're not going to come up to speed on the discussion, you won't know whether your observations have already been discussed, and you'll waste your time posting matters that have already been gone over.

 

I have looked at the posts if not read them in their entirety and I have not seen any prior posting of the arrow logo

 

Then you didn't really look at the posts with sufficient care. The logo is shown in this post, this post, this post, this post, this post, this post, and this post.

 

While you are correct there are no ads with pens posted towards a full scale target bulls eye...

 

That's not what I said at all; please do not mischaracterize my statements. I made no reference to any particular scale of bull's eye. There is no bull's eye at all.

 

...there are pictures extracted from ads and catalogs with pens pointed towards a white dot as though it were a bulls eye.

 

That's your interpretation, not a fact. When the White Dot is somewhat non-collinear with the supposedly "pointing" pens, is it still a bull's eye, but the pens are missing their target? Was Sheaffer saying that sometimes, their pens miss the Bull's Eye of Perfection?

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/wp-content/fpngallery/ads-radite/26-01-30-sep.jpg

 

Further before you chastise me for not reading the posts before commenting you didn't check the link I posted otherwise you would know the imprint on the pen is not from 1912

 

You'll want to brush up on your reading comprehension and attention to detail. Here's the exact quote from the link you provided:

 

"The imprint, shown in the detail below, is also the same as that borne by the early pen profiled in the PENnant article referenced above. Other examples of early pens with this imprint have also been reported to us, and it now seems evident that this was indeed Sheaffer's original imprint of 1912."

http://www.vintagepens.com/images/perm/earliestimprint.jpg

 

I look forward to your correction.

 

--Daniel

Edited January 23, 2015 by kirchh

[abw9259]

You'll want to brush up on your reading comprehension and attention to detail. Here's the exact quote from the link you provided:

 

"The imprint, shown in the detail below, is also the same as that borne by the early pen profiled in the PENnant article referenced above. Other examples of early pens with this imprint have also been reported to us, and it now seems evident that this was indeed Sheaffer's original imprint of 1912."

http://www.vintagepens.com/images/perm/earliestimprint.jpg

 

I look forward to your correction.

 

--Daniel

 

 

Attention to detail most likely but as far as reading comprehension you should possibly brush up on yours. As I clearly stated in my previous post when I am not at work I look at the pictures and not always the words and the imprint in the picture clearly shows 1908. Further, all of the ad and catalog excerpts save one or two show the pens clearly aimed towards the white dot as though it were a bulls eye with some even interspersing arrows with pens so as to further the imagery of the white dot as a bulls eye.

[jonveley]

I believe there is room for abw's comment, and I think we all can agree at this point that it's understandable that any participant in this discussion may not have absorbed everything done and said here. Yes, Daniel has addressed this point before and I fully relate to his frustration that (to my knowledge) was not originally fueled by abw.

 

To paraphrase an old argument I had (once) with my wife, when she once accused me of never listening to a word she said, I responded that I did -- there were just too many of them.

 

I only said that once. Fortunately, we are still married.

 

However, confining this comment to the arrow imprint now introduced in the dialogue, I think what is most relevant is that if Sheaffer's white dot truly were intended as a bullseye at any point in Sheaffer's early history, the arrow shown in this imprint would point to one. It does not. Therefore, the bulls eye was clearly not the intended target; if anything, the arrow itself was what Sheaffer briefly adopted.

 

If I'm reading everyone's comments correctly, on that point abw and Daniel, and myself, agree. Yes?

Edited January 23, 2015 by jonveley

[kirchh]

You'll want to brush up on your reading comprehension and attention to detail. Here's the exact quote from the link you provided:

 

"The imprint, shown in the detail below, is also the same as that borne by the early pen profiled in the PENnant article referenced above. Other examples of early pens with this imprint have also been reported to us, and it now seems evident that this was indeed Sheaffer's original imprint of 1912."

http://www.vintagepens.com/images/perm/earliestimprint.jpg

 

I look forward to your correction.

 

--Daniel

 

 

Attention to detail most likely but as far as reading comprehension you should possibly brush up on yours. As I clearly stated in my previous post when I am not at work I look at the pictures and not always the words and the imprint in the picture clearly shows 1908.

 

Incorrect. You seem to be confused about the difference between a patent date included in an imprint and the date of the imprint itself. The date in the imprint shown is the date that a patent was granted to Walter A. Sheaffer for a component of the filling mechanism used in the pen; it is not the date of the imprint itself, which is 1912, as I stated and as the link you provided confirms.

 

And to be absolutely clear, here's the statement of mine that you claimed was off by four years:

 

"... the extremely brief appearance of that imprint around 1912"

 

and here is David Nishimura's statement about the appearance of the imprint:

 

"... it now seems evident that this was indeed Sheaffer's original imprint of 1912."

 

The correction is still pending.

 

 

Further, all of the ad and catalog excerpts save one or two show the pens clearly aimed towards the white dot as though it were a bulls eye with some even interspersing arrows with pens so as to further the imagery of the white dot as a bulls eye.

 

Wrong on all counts. I'm help you with your homework, but I'm not going to do it all for you. Have a look at the ads from the period here:

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/?page_id=16&album=1&gallery=2

 

Some pens are aligned with the White Dot; some are slightly misaligned; some are badly misaligned; some are generally perpendicular; and some are pointing in a completely different direction. Again, you make the mistake of casting your interpretation as fact when you write, "as though it were a bulls eye." Furthermore, as I explained, there are not "some" ads interspersing arrows with pens; there is one (shown as printed in two publications), and it's from three years after the White Dot was introduced.

 

If you can't be bothered to read the previous posts with care, nor to understand the images, perhaps you can absorb one post that summarizes all the pertinent facts. It's here.

 

--Daniel

Edited January 23, 2015 by kirchh

[kirchh]

At the risk of being flagged for cross-posting, here's a summary of the facts that have been brought out on this topic. No one has stated that he/she disputes any of these assertions:

 

- Several non-pen companies used bull's eye imagery and/or variations of the slogan, "Bull's Eye of Perfection" prior to Sheaffer's incorporation:

 

November 6, 1901 Seattle Star:

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Remington_Typewriters_Seattle_Star_11-6-1901.jpg

 

January 1906 issue of Motor:

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Gray_and_Davis_Lamps_3-1906_Motor.jpg

 

Dec 1908 issue of the American Hay, Flour, and Feed Journal, p. 17

 

 

- At least one pen company (Moore's) used bull's eye imagery and a related slogan in advertising prior to Sheaffer's incorporation:

 

January 25, 1912 Walden's Stationer:

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Moore_ad_Bulls_eye_1-25-1912_Waldens_detail_small.jpg

 

 

- In a brief period about a decade before the WD appearance in 1924, there are scarce and fleeting references to arrows and bull´s eyes in Sheaffer´s materials

- Around 1913, Sheaffer briefly used the image of an archery target (not a "dartboard") and the slogan, "The Bull's Eye of Perfection", for their company's products.
- In the only color advertisement I know of, the center of the bullseye is dark, and the surrounding ring is red, with alternating light/red rings around that:

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Black_Bullseye_Detail.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Sheaffer_Color_Bulls_Eye_Crop_Thumbnail.jpg

- 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 first White Dot trademark filing is only for the white dot. It is not for a white dot with a surrounding black (or dark) circle:

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Logo_description_detail.jpg

 

- 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. When so applied, there is no outer ring whatsoever:

 

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

(Photo courtesy Roger Wooten's www.sheafferflattops.com)

- Sheaffer's White Dot trademark filing makes no mention of a target or bullseye.
- Sheaffer's White Dot trademark is not classified by the trademark office as representing a target. There is such a classification in the trademark system.
- 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:

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/wp-content/fpngallery/ads-hard-rubber/24-11-29-sep.jpg

(Courtesy Roger Wooten's www.sheafferflattops.com)

- 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, indicating celluloid pens were only available in green. Black celluloid pens were not yet being advertised:

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/wp-content/fpngallery/ads-radite/24-12-27-sep.jpg

(Courtesy Roger Wooten's www.sheafferflattops.com)

- 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 submitted by Sheaffer for their White Dot trademark file shows the dot on a Jade background:

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Specimen_detail.jpg

 

- In Sheaffer's 1992 White Dot trademark filing, they continue to make it clear that there is no outer ring in the symbol, writing, "The mark consists of a white dot and the stippling in the drawing is meant to indicate contrast only:"

 

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Registration_1736489_Detail.jpg

- The traditional color of an archery bullseye is not white, as claimed by Lazard. It is gold.
- The traditional color of the next ring in an archery target is not black (or green). It is red, as is the ring in the only known color version of Sheaffer's target image.

- Lazard has produced a single ad from 1927, three years after the White Dot was first used, that shows arrows, and he does not claim there are any others that show an arrow.

- After the introduction of the White Dot, and before the one ad with arrows, Sheaffer used all sorts of colorful imagery and language in their ads -- none of which included any reference to arrows, targets, or bull's eyes. These ads included references such as the following:

 

- the Arc de Triomphe ("a new Triumph")

- trees ("a world-record demand takes root")

- ocean waves ("on the high wave of public approval")

- skyscrapers ("this towering achievement")

- a Greek temple ("now a pencil 'classic'")

- a feather ("it is light in weight")

- a clock ("this fountain pen of the hour")

- a tapestry ("it is the banner pen of a banner year")

- a bouquet ("the flower of pen-dom'")

- snowflakes ("crystal-clear has been the success of this great pen")

- a winged hourglass ("time cannot harm these fine writing instruments")

- a harp ("in tune with the most exciting conceptions of beauty")

- a branch of dogwood ("the finest flowering of the reservoir pen idea")

- a heraldic lion ("this great pen is having a lion's share of success")

- the Notre Dame cathedral ("enduring beauty has been built into these towering successes")

 

- David Nishimura has seen a jewelry box he recalls as being from Sheaffer's jewelry business and having a concentric circle image on it. No photo is available, and no date or date range has been established for this item. Sheaffer's jewelry store remained in business under that name at least through 1921.

- Dunhill used a white spot on its pipes starting by 1915 and perhaps as early as 1912.

- Dunhill's White Spot came to represent their guarantee.

- Sheaffer had offices in New York very close to Dunhill's shop prior to the introduction of the White Dot.

- As a general matter, Sheaffer imitated other companies' products and marketing devices from time to time; examples include Sheaffer's use of "Vacuum-Fil" (cf Parker's "Vacuum Filler"), "Balanced" and the Balance design (Snapfil), and the black-ended Jade flat top pens (Duofold).

 

If anyone has specific challenges to any of these points, please post them so we can make corrections if warranted.

 

--Daniel

Edited January 23, 2015 by kirchh

[jonveley]

http://home.comcast.net/~kirchh/Misc/Moore_ad_Bulls_eye_1-25-1912_Waldens_detail_small.jpg

 

 

That's the end of the argument, IMHO. Nice find!

Edited January 23, 2015 by jonveley

[abw9259]

Daniel,

 

Long ago the great Simon & Garfunkel (Poets to a generation long before my own) once said, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Keep these words in mind.

 

Carefully reread my prior posts paying attention to both the tone and the words. Focus particularly on the post I made that directly lead to your responses. Then carefully reread your responses. I think you might realize you are reading a little more into what I have stated than is actually there.

 

I have not read all of the posts because 75% of what has been posted after the initial 10-20 is comprised of needless quoting of previous posts often with quotations divided up so as to mischaracterize what was initially posted when taken in total and baseless insults having nothing to do with the discussion itself.

[kirchh]

Daniel,

 

Long ago the great Simon & Garfunkel (Poets to a generation long before my own) once said, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Keep these words in mind.

 

Carefully reread my prior posts paying attention to both the tone and the words. Focus particularly on the post I made that directly lead to your responses. Then carefully reread your responses. I think you might realize you are reading a little more into what I have stated than is actually there.

 

I have not read all of the posts because 75% of what has been posted after the initial 10-20 is comprised of needless quoting of previous posts often with quotations divided up so as to mischaracterize what was initially posted when taken in total and baseless insults having nothing to do with the discussion itself.

And yet, you didn't know the imprint you thought you brought newly to the thread had already been posted repeatedly -- and even after I told you it had already been shown, you still didn't see it. Furthermore, you said I had the date of the imprint wrong when I said it was from about 1912 -- you claimed it was used in 1908. But your own link proved you wrong.

 

I invite you to post substantive responses.

 

--Daniel

[Roger W.]

You'll want to brush up on your reading comprehension and attention to detail. Here's the exact quote from the link you provided:

 

"The imprint, shown in the detail below, is also the same as that borne by the early pen profiled in the PENnant article referenced above. Other examples of early pens with this imprint have also been reported to us, and it now seems evident that this was indeed Sheaffer's original imprint of 1912."

http://www.vintagepens.com/images/perm/earliestimprint.jpg

 

I look forward to your correction.

 

--Daniel

 

 

Attention to detail most likely but as far as reading comprehension you should possibly brush up on yours. As I clearly stated in my previous post when I am not at work I look at the pictures and not always the words and the imprint in the picture clearly shows 1908. Further, all of the ad and catalog excerpts save one or two show the pens clearly aimed towards the white dot as though it were a bulls eye with some even interspersing arrows with pens so as to further the imagery of the white dot as a bulls eye.

This is clearly the 1912 imprint used on the first single lever bar pens based on the first lever patent of 1908. According to Sheaffers unofficial autobiography 35,000 of these pens were made starting from June 1912. The next imprint has the later 1912 patent which started with the introduction of the double bar pens in April 1913. The original pens used to obtain the patent in 1908 (submitted 1907) would not have been imprinted at all as the patent had yet to be granted. While Sheaffer assured everyone that the single lever bar was satisfactory it is clear that Sheaffer went to some lengths to recall them all as the known examples are less than 10.

 

Roger W.

[Pincel]

This is clearly the 1912 imprint used on the first single lever bar pens based on the first lever patent of 1908. According to Sheaffers unofficial autobiography 35,000 of these pens were made starting from June 1912. The next imprint has the later 1912 patent which started with the introduction of the double bar pens in April 1913. The original pens used to obtain the patent in 1908 (submitted 1907) would not have been imprinted at all as the patent had yet to be granted. While Sheaffer assured everyone that the single lever bar was satisfactory it is clear that Sheaffer went to some lengths to recall them all as the known examples are less than 10.

 

Roger W.

 

The court records of the bitterly-fought patent dispute between Sheaffer and former partner, George Kraker include a Sheaffer letter of February 12, 1913 seeking copyright protection for “lever filler” and “bull’s eye of perfection” – the exact terms featured most prominently in the Sheaffer 's first ever catalogue.

 

Hmm, what will Lazard make out of this?!

[jonveley]

Doesn't matter what Lazard would think of it -- the reason Sheaffer "sought" rather than obtained copyright protection for the phrase was because the term had already been widely used in several industries prior to Sheaffer's adoption of same. Including, as was posted by Daniel Kirchheimer over in the Spots & Dots thread, the Moore Pen Company. Sheaffer didn't come up with it, so Sheaffer couldn't copyright it.

 

Check here: https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/index.php/topic/282288-spots-and-dots-origins-of-sheaffers-white-dot/page-2

[kirchh]

 

The court records of the bitterly-fought patent dispute between Sheaffer and former partner, George Kraker include a Sheaffer letter of February 12, 1913 seeking copyright protection for “lever filler” and “bull’s eye of perfection” – the exact terms featured most prominently in the Sheaffer 's first ever catalogue.

 

Hmm, what will Lazard make out of this?!

 

That would probably have involved trademark registration, not copyright protection. Do you have the letter?

 

--Daniel