Represent The White Dot Something?

[Pincel]

 

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

 

--Daniel

 

It's mentioned in an article from David Nishimura's website: http://www.vintagepens.com/first_Sheaffers_2.htm.

[Roger W.]

It is actually not a letter as David frequently quotes pages from the case which is where this information comes from. David wrote this a long time ago and I am sure agrees that the oval imprint does not just mean circa 1913. There is an abbreviated use of two more imprints made after the original oval imprint those containing a Large S with a pen through it. These may have been started in use during the case and then abandoned for the oval perhaps under advice of council not to change anything. The oval was likely in use until near 1917 as we have a lot of occurrences of that imprint for it to have been in use in only 1913.

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/images/Imprint%201912.jpg

1912 Imprint

 

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

Imprint 1913-1916/7. Likely first in use when the first double bar pens were made in April 1913.

 

Roger W.

 

 

[Lazard 20]

SHEAFFER´S EMPLOYEE SERVICE ANNIVERSARY LAZARD

http://s16.postimg.org/ujno45bjp/Employee_Service_Anniversary_Pins_Lazard_500pix.jpg

[Roger W.]

 

SHEAFFER´S EMPLOYEE SERVICE ANNIVERSARY LAZARD

http://s16.postimg.org/ujno45bjp/Employee_Service_Anniversary_Pins_Lazard_500pix.jpg

 

Still not a target. You've got it wrong again.

 

When we talk about Sheaffer we talk about the white dot. No one has ever talked about the Sheaffer target because there is no such thing.

 

Roger W.

[Lazard 20]

We agree, indeed it is not a target. It´s a Sheaffer´S Employee Service Anniversay pin as badge of recognition of antiqueness where each "S" means a period of five years of dedication(*) and where we can see, again, a little WD within a larger and darker circle... as the first catalog precisely whatever this last means. We do not agree that, as each S symbolizes something, the WD can mean something, but yes we agree it is a pin not a target and that an "S" is an "S", double "S" are double "S" and three "S" are three "S".

 

 

(*) so 1-"S" 5 years, 2-"S" 10, or 3-"S" 15 years of seniority.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Lazard 20

[kirchh]

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

 

Not so -- Moore did not use "Bull's Eye of Perfection;" the ad I showed uses "Hits the Bulls ye every time." The BEoP slogan was used by companies in other industries, as shown.

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

Lazard:

 

Regarding your presentation of the service pins, written in a style with which you should be familiar:

 

You claim the White Dot was designed in 1923 and early 1924. The service pins are from after that. The designers of the White Dot could not see the service pins for inspiration so this implies that your pictures of the service pins are irrelevant... like the rest of your comments.

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

Don't you know how to read? Please do not insist on matters after the summer of 1924.

 

--Daniel

[Ernst Bitterman]

There is an extra ring in the imagery on those service awards which someone anxious to bolster the target argument might point to as a bolster for their position. It is more likely to be an artifact of the cloisonne technique for separating two different colours of enamel. It's interesting that there is an inclusion of a black surround, but that is no more conclusively a target than it is an evocation of the cap-top many dots were found in and which appeared in ads previously shown. I'm not saying with any authority that it's absolutely not a target (however strong the evidence in that direction is), but it doesn't strengthen the pro-target argument any more than those print ads.

[Pincel]

Still not a target. You've got it wrong again.

 

When we talk about Sheaffer we talk about the white dot. No one has ever talked about the Sheaffer target because there is no such thing.

 

Roger W.

 

Careful with words, Roger. There is the Sheaffer Target fountain model of 1960, which is renamed Imperial III the following year. It's NOT a White Dot model though.

[Lazard 20]

You claim the White Dot was designed in 1923 and early 1924. The service pins are from after that. The designers of the White Dot could not see the service pins for inspiration so this implies that your pictures of the service pins are irrelevant... like the rest of your comments.

 

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

 

Don't you know how to read? Please do not insist on matters after the summer of 1924.

 

--Daniel

 

I claim nothing. I have said in my first entry:

 

-That if, and only if, that idea origin in Catalog was real , the White Dot could be a dartboard as extracted image represents everything logo.

 

It clearly shows that it is a rhetorical and conditional questioning.

 

About origin of the logo, obviously in that particular and concrete paragraph I was speaking about the origin of the logo in the moment of their creation or first drawing, or circular background for designer as total image inside a circle as circular top cap or exterior circle in trademark in order to try to get closer to the feelings of the designer in that moment, but in this topic I´m talking about an issue without limitation date :

 

Represent The White Dot Something?

 

Do you see? in the tittle of my topic there aren´t date limitation.

 

On the other hand, the designers of the White Dot could not see the service pins for inspiration, as you say... but the designers of the service pin could see a bullseye in WD for inspiration, as someone could say.

 

Your insistence about to limit the issue only before summer 1924 is due to the fact that after 1924 you see a bullseye, as maybe pin designers could have saw, and you don´t want talk about what you see or understand from 1924? http://miarroba.st/092/caretos/wink.gif

Edited January 26, 2015 by Lazard 20

[kirchh]

 

I claim nothing. I have said in my first entry:

 

-That if, and only if, that idea origin in Catalog was real , the White Dot could be a dartboard as extracted image represents everything logo.

 

It clearly shows that it is a rhetorical and conditional questioning.

 

Untrue. It is very disappointing that you are now fleeing from your position, which has been made clear to all readers here for over two years.

 

You have stated that the White Dot has its origin as a bull's eye or center of a dartboard.

 

You have also stated that the imagery Sheaffer used in 1913 and the White Dot logo are linked.

 

You have also stated that Sheaffer did great work evoking the meaning of the White Dot as a bull's eye.

 

You have also stated that Walter Sheaffer himself saw a bull's eye in the White Dot logo.

 

You have also stated that the provenance of the White Dot is explained by Sheaffer's use of target imagery around 1913.

 

You have also stated that the members of your family -- which of course includes you -- and your friends and "fp relations" "have no doubt" that the White Dot was supposed to represent a target.

 

You have also stated that while Roger (and I, and may others) do not conclude that the origin of the White Dot lies in Sheaffer's early use of target imagery, you hold an "opposing view."

 

You have also stated that you, along with "many people," believe the White Dot represents a bull's eye.

 

You have also stated that the White Dot is the center of a target.

 

You have also stated that the origin of the White Dot is that graphical representation of a bull's eye in Sheaffer's first catalogue.

 

So, when you now say, "I claim nothing," that's simply false.

 

About origin of the logo, obviously in that particular and concrete paragraph I was speaking about the origin of the logo in the moment of their creation or first drawing, or circular background for designer as total image inside a circle as circular top cap or exterior circle in trademark in order to try to get closer to the feelings of the designer in that moment,

 

Thank you for admitting that the service pins do not support your claim about the White Dot's origin being a bull's eye. That's real progress.

 

One error: The White Dot trademark has no "exterior circle." The trademark is specifically only for the dot. The background in the drawing is necessary because the dot is white, but it is only background for the drawing. The photographic specimen Sheaffer submitted for an example of how the White Dot would be used on a product shows it inlaid into the top of a Jade green pen cap, but the circle formed by the cap is not part of the trademark, and, of course, there would not even be such a circle when the Dot was applied to the side of a pen's barrel or cap. For an image to even be considered as a possible representation of a target, it must have at least one ring around the center disk. Sheaffer's White Dot logo has no ring around the center disk. if Sheaffer intended the White Dot to look like a target, Sheaffer would have included an outer ring in the trademark, and Sheaffer would have applied the logo with both the inner disk and the outer ring on their products.

 

But they didn't.

 

 

but in this topic I´m talking about an issue without limitation date :

 

Represent The White Dot Something?

 

Do you see? in the tittle of my topic there aren´t date limitation.

 

On the other hand, the designers of the White Dot could not see the service pins for inspiration, as you say... but the designers of the service pin could see a bullseye in WD for inspiration, as someone could say.

 

I suppose someone could say that, but no one has.

 

You haven't said that, have you?

 

If no one takes that position, there is no refutation needed.

 

Importantly, you are now abandoning your claim that the White Dot's origin lies in Sheaffer's use of target imagery in its earliest days, and you no longer claim that when it was designed, the White Dot was intended to represent a target. You have now moved on to a completely different matter: Whether the White Dot might have been later used as an element by Sheaffer artists to build a target motif in/on certain items. However, as noted, though someone could say this, no one has.

 

Perhaps you should start a new topic: "Did Sheaffer's designers later use the White Dot as the center of a target in some representations?"

 

Your insistence about to limit the issue only before summer 1924 is due to the fact that after 1924 you see a bullseye, as maybe pin designers could have saw, and you don´t want talk about what you see or understand from 1924? http://miarroba.st/092/caretos/wink.gif

 

Another language issue appears to have cropped up here. Please re-read my post more slowly. You have misrepresented my statements many times in the past, and at best it is an indication of unacceptable laziness or sloppiness; it results in lots of detours in the discussion where you have to be corrected over and over again. But again, I thank you for finally conceding that none of the evidence you have presented from after late 1924 supports your position that the origin of the White Dot is in Sheaffer's early use of target imagery. That's a major step forward for this discussion.

 

--Daniel

[Lazard 20]

The absence of citations is clamorous. It is simples and interested interpretations of part ... of you part.

 

I´m very pleased as has been this topic and as FPN users have saw sequential images and they have read different points of view so that everyone can take freely their own opinión or any opinión. I am also glad that everyone has been reading you and Roger.

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/index.php/topic/236305-represent-the-white-dot-something/page-4

So I'm not interested in more until the appearance, in its case, of new Sheaffer'S images with a little white circle inside a larger and darker one or more Sheaffer´S "bullseye of perfection" sentences.

 

You give me many advices and you'll be without them, so I'll also give away one so that you have, here goes:

 

Perhaps you should start a new topic: "When Sheaffer's designers use the White Dot as the center of a target in some representations, they were referring to Sheaffer´S "bullseye of perfection", or a pipe, or something else, or nothing?"

 

The cuestion title of this topic, Represent the White Dot Something? has been answered. As I wanted to present, there are many arrows, targets, concentric circles, bullseyes of perfection and white dots in the first fifteen years of Sheaffer'S existence. All opinions that there can be inferred belong to everyone.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Lazard 20

[Roger W.]

 

Careful with words, Roger. There is the Sheaffer Target fountain model of 1960, which is renamed Imperial III the following year. It's NOT a White Dot model though.

Yes there was a target pen but, in reference to the "white dot" no one has ever referred to it as a "target" beyond someones dead horse pet theory. Because, as I said, the "white dot" is not a target.

 

Roger W.

[kirchh]

The absence of citations is clamorous. It is simples and interested interpretations of part ... of you part.

 

Citations for what? Surely you're not denying posting all of those claims, are you?

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

I´m very pleased as has been this topic and as FPN users have saw sequential images...

 

Your graphic contains multiple errors that you refuse to correct, so you are misleading FPN users with your supposed "sequential images."

 

it is very revealing that you apparently are afraid that you can't make your point without posting erroneous information.

 

--Daniel

[kirchh]

Perhaps you should start a new topic: "When Sheaffer's designers use the White Dot as the center of a target in some representations, they were referring to Sheaffer´S "bullseye of perfection", or a pipe, or something else, or nothing?"

 

Here, you engage in the fallacy of begging the question, a variation of the black/white fallacy, false embedded assumption... it's quite a mess.

 

Perhaps you should start a new topic: "When Sheaffer's designers use the White Dot as a flower in some representations, they were referring to Sheaffer´S "bullseye of perfection", or a pipe, or something else, or nothing?"

 

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

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

 

Isn't it interesting that even in the one Sheaffer ad showing arrows, they, and the pen and pencil, aren't even going to hit the White Dot? The pen is going to miss the putative "target" completely. Apparently, Sheaffer did not want to give the impression that their pens hit the bull's eye. Modesty, perhaps.

 

http://www.sheafferflattops.com/wp-content/fpngallery/ads-radite/27-10-1-ld.jpg

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

 

--Daniel

Edited January 26, 2015 by kirchh

[FarmBoy]

Amazing. I liken the proponent of the target theory to the Energizer Bunny or a Timex watch.

 

I can't wait until the 'Black Dot represents something' thread.

[jonveley]

Amazing. I liken the proponent of the target theory to the Energizer Bunny or a Timex watch.

 

I can't wait until the 'Black Dot represents something' thread.

 

It's what you get when you punch a white dot.

[jonveley]

 

Not so -- Moore did not use "Bull's Eye of Perfection;" the ad I showed uses "Hits the Bulls ye every time." The BEoP slogan was used by companies in other industries, as shown.

 

--Daniel

 

Apologies, Daniel - for the overly lawyerly (and therefore thoroughly unhelpful) comment. My understanding of what can be copyrighted are "original works." To clarify what I meant, the phrase "Bull's Eye of Perfection" was not original and could not be copyrighted, whether compared to the Moore advertisement or the earlier ones. It was not "original" to Sheaffer since the exact words had been used by other manufacturers, nor do I believe it was "original" in comparison with Moore's use of slightly different words to deliver essentially the same message.

 

Trademark is a different animal, with a "likelihood of confusion" standard which would allow the same mark to be used in different industries -- hence the Dunhill theory.

 

BeRa, does the letter to which you refer indicate "copyright" or "trademark?" I haven't seen it, and it's easy to blur the distinction between the two concepts.

[ANM]

I was hoping nobody would mention the black dots.