Why Craig Was A Sheaffer Sub-Brand

[Vintagepens]

RamonCampos does not seem to understand that the record we are citing is the official court transcript. It contains the testimony of all parties involved. It is not a Sheaffer-team press release, or compilation of talking points. When the transcript records what Walter A. Sheaffer said, it is transcribing what he testified in open court under oath. The record also includes cross-examination and statements from counsel on both sides. And yet while there is plenty of disputation to be found in the transcript over details large and small of the early years of the Sheaffer pen company, one thing that is not contradicted in any way by opposing witnesses is Sheaffer's account of Craig and the other early Sheaffer sub-brands. If Sheaffer's account of Craig were indeed false, it would have been easily provable, and would have done a great deal to harm his credibility as a witness. There is simply no way it would not have been brought up and entered into evidence -- had it been true.

This is all solid primary evidence -- about as solid as one could ever ask for. And yet RamonCampos dismisses it out of hand, simply because it flatly contradicts his pet theory.

No, RamonCampos, I'm not about to rewrite my article. It is based upon the evidence -- not one man's creative imagination.

 

 

 

Even assuming you were able to understand if testimony was of Walter Sheaffer or coming from Harvey Craig the delinquent condemned in this law suit, or of another third party or a mere impression of the lawyer copywriter, a draft copy Prima facie* of 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 lever fillers ... has not have name what it is.

 

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

 

Goodbye.

 

*For more inconsistency probably with the case still not closed.

[Vintagepens]

Sheaffer made Craig-branded pens for quite a long time. There is no evidence that Craig-branded pens were made by anyone else. The trial transcript indicates that Sheaffer, like most penmakers of the time, relied heavily upon subcontractors. All of their pens, including the subbrands, were for quite a while assembled in Fort Madison from parts made elsewhere.

 

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

[Vintagepens]

This is another example of how an untrained amateur historian falls into logical traps.
Firstly, not one of these ads and newspaper mentions describes the Craig pens as being anything other than Sheaffer-made.
Secondly, the earliest of these is only 1914, with most 1915 or later -- not valid evidence for Sheaffer's first few years.

Thirdly, an apparent concentration of newspaper ads in one region can have multiple explanations, including but not limited to:

• Differing advertising methods being used in different regions
• Incomplete digitization of period newspapers and broadsheets
• Greater advertising budgets in areas where competition was greater
• Strategically targeted promotion and sale of subbrands

 

Note too that by Sheaffer's court testimony, Craig pens were being sold from 1912 on -- and yet the first mention RamonCampos has found is 1914. One simply cannot give such weight to newspaper mentions when it is clear that there is such a large gap between what was being manufactured and sold and what was showing up in print.
This is well known to anyone who has done extensive pen history research, particularly with subbrands. By their very nature, subbrands were seldom advertised much -- in some cases, virtually not at all. But even with flagship models of top brands, it has been demonstrated over and over again that there can be a very large disconnect between what was being made and what appeared in print ads.

 

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.

[Vintagepens]

Note that later Craig-branded pens -- including most of the lever-fillers -- were made using components turned over to Sheaffer as a result of his court victory over Kraker et al. But this has zero bearing on the first Craig-branded pens, which were made in the years prior to the outcome of that legal battle.

[PenHero]

David,

 

Thanks very much for the detailed response. I learned a LOT!

[PenHero]

For reference, I'm adding links to David's articles, first published in the PENnant

 

Spring 2001

 

New Evidence for the Early History of the Sheaffer Pen Company: The First Sheaffer Pens (First in a Series)

 

http://www.vintagepens.com/first_Sheaffers.htm

 

Summer 2001:

 

New Evidence for the Early History of the Sheaffer Pen Company: Introduction & Notes

 

http://www.vintagepens.com/first_Sheaffers_intro.htm

 

New Evidence for the Early History of the Sheaffer Pen Company: The First Sheaffer Catalogs, and Sheaffer Sub-Brands (Second in a Series)

 

http://www.vintagepens.com/first_Sheaffers_2.htm

[FarmBoy]

Why am I reminded of a discussion about shellac?

[inkstainedruth]

Why am *I* reminded of why I don't go on Facebook much? I get enough conspiracy theories shoved down my throat there already....

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[Lazard 20]

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!

 

You are welcome, adicionally I think would be desirable not only ask me explanations -I have given many here- besides ask to those who claim otherwise, that they show us a photo of a only page where FPN users can read that Walter A. Sheaffer in 1912 and onward was manufacturing clips, levers and bars different from his patents and selling eyedropper or coin filler, because as we all know this Craig´s pens with strange clips non Sheaffer´S and extravagant filling systems non Sheaffer´S too.

 

I am here expressly speaking, and so I have repeatedly stated, about the origin of Craig pens name (guilty Harvey Craig name I claim) and the first years of their manufacture. I'm not talking about what happened since 1918 onwards when Sheaffer acquires Kraker Pen Co. after being condemned this last one and Barrett to pay royalties to Sheaffer or to stop the production ( I clarify pay royalties because seems not to be known by others or, at least, it does not say it in his articles being important as cause and effect; as the reason why Kraker left Kraker Pen Co. leaving it helpless so Sheaffer acquired this company and incorporing Kraker employees in Kansas and Fort Madison later). The Craig's pens after 1918 deserves another topic and so I'll leave it; please, understand it is for the sake of not going away on a tangential issue. By the way, a curiosity that nobody has cited before -I think-, in 1916 - very long after Sheaffer patents, and in the middle of the law suit, guilty Barrett -pen holder Kraker´s manufacturer- presented a ridiculous, by similar to previously Sheaffer´s patent, a patent of lever filling (1,292,736 filled june 26, 1916) to "justify" his defense; guilty Craig did the same in the Interference for "justify" his attack, so he present a patent, much later than those of Sheaffer (1,243,323 filled april 9, 1914) and guilty Kraker did the same in his defense (1,111,469 filled too in April 1914) copiying artfully the previous Sheaffer´S clip patent; Walter must have suffered a lot with all these lies and tricks of guilty Kraker & Co. In any case you will see the real story that leaves very clear the honesty of Walter Sheaffer, and to his opponents very, very battered declared guilty in both administrative and civil jurisdiction, something very different from what is written in a determinen web article and pen forums whose opinions that have been based on it.

 

Of these complot made by Kraker with the patents no one has spoken before -I think- and belong to my personal knowledge what should be respect regardless my opinion deducted of them is shared or not.

 

About your question previous in relation with "who knows what" I wouldl say that I know everything that has been written about those documents including olds Pennant, Dennis Bowden writing out of Pennant, and the most current that we all know. To these attentive readings we must add my own investigations as the study of documents of these three confrontations; the Patent Interfence interposed by Harvey Craig with Kraker as instigator, the law suit Sheaffer vs Barrett and Kraker (the latter not cited by other articles) but that was a defendant in the case, and the Kraker´s Appeal. To these attentive readings we must be added my personal knowledge of the early years of Walter (only a deep study, how I did, could bring to light three different locations, not only one, of his family jewelry store in Bloomfield or the two "missing" pages of his Life Story, or the ballroom dances that he organizes next to his friends when he was young man, or the existence a unknown Sheaffer´S jewelry store in Milton e.g.) and that I already have reflected in topics such as "Walter Life Story", "Sheaffer's old pocket watches", "The Sheaffer's in Bloomfield", "The Sheaffer in Fort Madison", etc. moreover I have maintained contacts with different historical associations, with current owners of the homes where they lived and associations to which Walter belonged; whoever thinks I'm new to the subject is confused. That is why I affirm:

1. The file cited here is not a transcription of any one law suit (we are forced to think it because they do not show two simple photo as cover and page in cuestion); is a simple draft copy prima facie, simples notes of a law firm, interested of one of the parties so that using the words "testimony" and "transcription” about them is not applicable and historically very deceptive.
2. Walter Sheaffer never spoke of these fountain pens in the numerous documents that we know. We have never seen Craig Pen related to Fort Madison before 1918. There is no evidence that Craig pens were being manufactured in 1912; the first publicity, appears much later, after leaving Kraker and Harvey Craig the Sheaffer´S Co. and in place where Kraker and Craig manufactured, far away from Fort Madison and Sheaffer´S.
3. Considering that Sheaffer´S pens was too different to Craig´s pens does not make sense for Walter Sheaffer to complicate his small installation in during beginnings, having only little machinery, handling two different types of barrels, clips, levers and bars.
4. If Walter would had made the Craig´s pens he would have lost the cause of the Patent Interference immediately, in a single sesión, because the Harvey Craig´s attorney would have been enough to say that Walter was a forger because he manufactured coin filler products, with clips or filling systems with patents he did not have. In this case Sheaffer would have been defeated in a single session ... and nevertheless Walter Sheaffer was raised as brilliant and honest winner in this Interference.
5. the burden of the proof supporting for those that claim in their mere and own words is heavily. Who claim that Craig pen in its origins was owned by Sheaffer and that Craig pen name it comes from Walter's son and not, as it really is, from guilty Harvey Craig, do not bear the burden of proof.

I have provided enough evidence(1) or traces for the name of Walter Sheaffer to shine on the leftovers of doubt that a bad reading of this law firm notes, misinterpreted and worse read, has left over Walter Sheaffer. In my opinion, and many others, there are sufficient traces to reconsider both cases; the leftovers of doubt about Walter Sheaffer and the production of Craig's pens pre-1918.

 

(1) I will give more, with comparative photos, as soon as I find free time so meanwhile we will wait for the two pages photo that the question demands, the one belonging to the cover of the booknotes and the one in which "supposedly" Sheaffer afirms that he was manufacturing Craig pens from 1912,

Edited January 16, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

 

That is why I affirm:

1. The file cited here is not a transcription of any one law suit (we are forced to think it because they do not show two simple photo as cover and page in cuestion); is a simple draft copy prima facie, simples notes of a law firm, interested of one of the parties so that using the words "testimony" and "transcription” about them is not applicable and historically very deceptive.
2. Walter Sheaffer never spoke of these fountain pens in the numerous documents that we know. We have never seen Craig Pen related to Fort Madison before 1918. There is no evidence that Craig pens were being manufactured in 1912; the first publicity, appears much later, after leaving Kraker and Harvey Craig the Sheaffer´S Co. and in place where Kraker and Craig manufactured, far away from Fort Madison and Sheaffer´S.
3. Considering that Sheaffer´S pens was too different to Craig´s pens does not make sense for Walter Sheaffer to complicate his small installation in during beginnings, having only little machinery, handling two different types of barrels, clips, levers and bars.
4. If Walter would had made the Craig´s pens he would have lost the cause of the Patent Interference immediately, in a single sesión, because the Harvey Craig´s attorney would have been enough to say that Walter was a forger because he manufactured coin filler products, with clips or filling systems with patents he did not have. In this case Sheaffer would have been defeated in a single session ... and nevertheless Walter Sheaffer was raised as brilliant and honest winner in this Interference.
5. the burden of the proof supporting for those that claim in their mere and own words is heavily. Who claim that Craig pen in its origins was owned by Sheaffer and that Craig pen name it comes from Walter's son and not, as it really is, from guilty Harvey Craig, do not bear the burden of proof.

 

 

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

Did you read the posts and articles from David Nishimura and Roger Wooten? They refute each of your points. I am citing their posts above, point by point.

 

1. Both David and Roger have seen the official court transcript - 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. So has Daniel Kirchheimer. This is the legal document they are citing to support their position. Have you fully read the document?

2. Your second point, based on the court transcript, is incorrect: "by Sheaffer's court testimony, Craig pens were being sold from 1912".

3. Your third point also is refuted, based on the transcript: "The trial transcript indicates that Sheaffer, like most penmakers of the time, relied heavily upon subcontractors. All of their pens, including the subbrands, were for quite a while assembled in Fort Madison from parts made elsewhere".

4. Your fourth point is an opinion, and makes no sense given the facts in 1-3 above. Obviously Sheaffer was making Craig pens from 1912 and they did not lose any Patents as a result.

5. As to your fifth point, the burden of proof is on YOU, not David, Roger or Daniel, to prove your case. I don't believe, based on what you have presented so far, that your thesis would pass peer review in the WES Journal and I know it would not in the Pennant. I actually am amazed that you told David he needed to rewrite his article "and clean the image of Walter A. (Amos, perhaps?) Sheaffer."

 

David, Roger and Daniel have all done a lot of original research on this with the original transcripts. You haven't offered anything to refute their positions other than opinion or tangental references such as dealer advertisements showing that Craig pens were offered, but the advertisements don't support your position on who made them. Showing pictures of imprints is not proof, either. VACUUM brand pens were also made by Sheaffer and have no imprint other than VACUUM. You are hanging way too much on the Harvey Craig idea.

 

Please stop. You are not making your case at all.

[Lazard 20]

These are two "very cute" examples of Harvey Craig's pens, that not Sheaffer´S pen, with a chased "very Conklin" with a "modern system" coin filler that someone pretend to make us believe that they were manufactured by Walter Sheaffer, and we unknowingly it! Maybe a day he ran out of stock of his famous levers and threw them without them?

 

[Lazard 20]

One more day and the cover of law firm´s note book nor the page of the alleged "testimony" still do not appear.

Edited January 17, 2019 by RamonCampos

[JonSzanto]

[FarmBoy]

I watch NASCAR to see the wrecks. Heck I’d like it even more if they left the wrecked cars and debris on the track and kept going.

 

Anyone else here for the same reason?

[Roger W.]

From Sheaffer v. Barrett -

 

522.210

[Roger W.]

710.400

[Roger W.]

889-579

[JonSzanto]

Anyone else here for the same reason?

 

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

[Roger W.]

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.

[PenHero]

Hi, Roger,

 

This is really great information. Thanks!