Why Craig Was A Sheaffer Sub-Brand

[PenHero]

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

Now that all your points are refuted you are attempting to discredit the transcript?

 

I encourage those who want to see Daniel’s point by point refutation to read this thread. As you would expect, it is more detailed.

 

https://estilograficas.mforos.com/1176622/13010872-el-caso-craig-walter-sheaffer-era-honesto-y-asi-lo-proclamo/?pag=3

[Lazard 20]

Walter Sheaffer did not manufacture the fountain pens that I have been referring in this topic -1914/1918-. Walter never did Craig lever filler in 1914, so who did these? Who sold them in Kansas? Whom manufactured Craig fountain pens lever filler in Kansas?

 

As for Walter's honesty, there is no evidence that he is not, on contrary the patents down inserted in chronological evolution prove it and it shows that the cheaters was Kraker and Craig.

 

As for the Kansas manufactures produced during 1914 to 1918 it has already reasonable doubts that these pens were not Sheaffer´S manufactured

 

Someone want to say that Walter, during 1914 to 1918, in the middle of his lawsuits that comprises the period of ads that I have uploaded today and previous days, manufactured CRAIG fountain pens, without imprint, with another clip not Sheaffer'S, nib non Sheaffer´S and with a lever not Sheaffer'S, and unknown imprint only CRAIG and he did not sell this pens in Iowa and only sold in Kansas at 280 mi., which, in 1914, were many milles? Whom dominated the penmarket there in those dates?

 

On the other hand the origin name taken in their case from a presumed lawyer/client prepared statement - obligated for circumvent the lies of Harvey Craig- without previous nor subsequent undoubted references to this origin is irrelevant and must be put in doubt; It is perfectly possible that Harvey Craig, as an Sheaffer´s employee and working under Sheaffer´s direction for a few months, did some pen tests, clearly; as clearly as if Sheaffer had had a dog named Craig, before a guilty Graig demand, Lawyer/Client would have said that the name was for the dog... me too and you too and we would be saying today that the name has the origin in a dog; Once they robbed me and asked me if I had more valuables; I told them no -smile-. The existence of two "Craig", the defensive circumstances, the absence of antecedents firts name in the industry, the relation lawyer/client, and the nonexistent previous or subsequent references to this origin from Sheaffer´S requires that this be questioned.

 

The Craig pens that I have referred to from the beginning of the topic there are reasonable doubts that they are not Sheaffer'S, so:

 

My conclusion after presenting the evidence: I claim there are reasonable doubts to reconsider the production of Craig pens from 1914 until the acquisition of Kraker's factory in 1918, on the other hand two different jurisdictions endorsed highlighted Sheaffer's honesty it does not make sense to plant shadows of doubt about his honesty. Both issues should be reconsidered.

 

 

 

THE END

 

 

 

 

 

 

Add. chronological ordering of patents where FPN users can see Sheaffer patents prevail, not just one but up to 3 which shows that Walter was evolving his patent, other which Craig filled one to "justify" the Interference and as a curiosity as Kraker (see upper cylinder in inner cap to anchor clip) also copies to Sheaffer

 

.

Edited January 19, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

Hi, RamonCampos,

First, the thread is not closed.

Second, you do not get to declare the end as if your last post closes the argument.

Your thesis is false.

Lets review the points you made:

Sheaffer was making Craig branded pens, named after his son Craig, according to the testimony of Walter A. Sheaffer and certainly before 1914. He testifies that none of the first pens were lever fillers.

Your use of advertisements does not prove who made Craig pens. They do not say made by Sheaffer, Kraker or anyone else.

No one is saying Walter A. Sheaffer was dishonest. Actually quite the opposite. Using his testimony presumes he was being honest under oath.

Showing photos of lever fill Craig pens proves nothing except that they were made at some point. If you read Walter A. Sheaffers testimony he is only saying they were not made in the time frame he is testifying about. They certainly could be made later and obviously were.

You personally may have doubts that Craig pens were made by Sheaffer before 1918, but that would make YOU the one who is calling Walter A. Sheaffer a liar, not David, Roger or Daniel.

Your thesis that early Craig pens were not made by Sheaffer, including early eyedroppers and coin fillers, and that they were named for Harvey Craig is false.

Edited January 20, 2019 by PenHero
Corrected spelling - it was bugging me

[PenHero]

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

Your addition of Sheaffer, Craig and Kraker patent information does not disprove that Sheaffer was making Craig pens before 1918, nor does it prove that Craig pens have anything to do with Harvey Craig.

[Lazard 20]

Hi, RamonCampos,

Your addition of Sheaffer, Craig and Kraker patent information does not disprove that Sheaffer was making Craig pens before 1918, nor does it prove that Craig pens have anything to do with Harvey Craig.

 

Hi, Jim:

 

Let me disagree, It is evident that I am not obligated to prove anything, because nothing I claim, rather it will be those who have shadows of doubt about an honest person who will have to do it.

 

The topic was necessarily predesigned to get here because I could not expose directly, I was obligated to present my conclusions with a previous step by step. Everything I wanted to say I have expressed it in today's post doing terminating the exposition of my conclusions. My questions aloud should be understood as an incitement to reflect in a certain direction but it should not be understood that they enclose my thought or opinion that I always raise in my last posts -there are many topics example of this driving way-

 

The enlightening, I think, comparison of Sheaffer/Craig/Kraker lever and bar 1914/1918, although it deserves to be commented, I will leave it for another topic.

Edited January 19, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

Walter Sheaffer did not manufacture the fountain pens that I have been referring in this topic -1914/1918-. Walter never did Craig lever filler in 1914, so who did these? Who sold them in Kansas? Whom manufactured Craig fountain pens lever filler in Kansas?

 

This is incorrect - there is no proof that Craig pens were made by anyone other than Sheaffer. You have not proven that Craig lever fill pens were not made by Sheaffer. That Craig pens were sold in Kansas does not indicate who made them.

 

As for Walter's honesty, there is no evidence that he is not, on contrary the patents down inserted in chronological evolution prove it and it shows that the cheaters was Kraker and Craig.

 

This list of patents does not prove your case at all. They are not relevant to who made Craig brand pens.

 

As for the Kansas manufactures produced during 1914 to 1918 it has already reasonable doubts that these pens were not Sheaffer´S manufactured

 

The advertisements you cite only prove that Craig brand pens were sold in Kansas. They do not prove who made them.

 

Someone want to say that Walter, during 1914 to 1918, in the middle of his lawsuits that comprises the period of ads that I have uploaded today and previous days, manufactured CRAIG fountain pens, without imprint, with another clip not Sheaffer'S, nib non Sheaffer´S and with a lever not Sheaffer'S, and unknown imprint only CRAIG and he did not sell this pens in Iowa and only sold in Kansas at 280 mi., which, in 1914, were many milles? Whom dominated the penmarket there in those dates?

 

Walter A. Sheaffer himself made this statement in his own testimony. He was making Craig pens, named after his son Craig prior to 1914. The advertisements prove nothing about who made them.

 

On the other hand the origin name taken in their case from a presumed lawyer/client prepared statement - obligated for circumvent the lies of Harvey Craig- without previous nor subsequent undoubted references to this origin is irrelevant and must be put in doubt; It is perfectly possible that Harvey Craig, as an Sheaffer´s employee and working under Sheaffer´s direction for a few months, did some pen tests, clearly; as clearly as if Sheaffer had had a dog named Craig, before a guilty Graig demand, Lawyer/Client would have said that the name was for the dog... me too and you too and we would be saying today that the name has the origin in a dog; Once they robbed me and asked me if I had more valuables; I told them no -smile-. The existence of two "Craig", the defensive circumstances, the absence of antecedents firts name in the industry, the relation lawyer/client, and the nonexistent previous or subsequent references to this origin from Sheaffer´S requires that this be questioned.

 

Sheafer did not have a dog named Craig. He named Craig pens after his son Craig as stated in his sworn testimony. You have offered no proof that Harvey Craig made any pens with his name on it.

 

The Craig pens that I have referred to from the beginning of the topic there are reasonable doubts that they are not Sheaffer'S, so:

 

You have not supplied ANY proof that they are NOT made by Sheaffer other than your personal observations. Walter A. Sheaffers testimony supports that Craig brand pens were indeed significantly different than Sheaffer brand pens.

 

My conclusion after presenting the evidence: I claim there are reasonable doubts to reconsider the production of Craig pens from 1914 until the acquisition of Kraker's factory in 1918, on the other hand two different jurisdictions endorsed highlighted Sheaffer's honesty it does not make sense to plant shadows of doubt about his honesty. Both issues should be reconsidered.

 

Actually you have not made your case at all.

 

Add. chronological ordering of patents where FPN users can see Sheaffer patents prevail, not just one but up to 3 which shows that Walter was evolving his patent, other which Craig filled one to "justify" the Interference and as a curiosity as Kraker (see upper cylinder in inner cap to anchor clip) also copies to Sheaffer

 

These patents do not support your thesis in any way. They do not disprove Sheaffer made Craig pens nor do they prove that anyone else made Craig branded pens.

[Lazard 20]

Does not a prior patent prove anything and if it proves a lot the content of a typed, not authenticated defensive testimony prepared between lawyer and client?

 

Nothing proves the sentence of a judge who has been studying a case for three years and if it proves a lot the content of a typed, not authenticated and defensive testimony prepared between lawyer and client?

 

How the innocence and the prevalence of inventions proven in Pendom?

Edited January 19, 2019 by RamonCampos

[FarmBoy]

Can I get a point of clarification from anyone that might still be reading/

 

The Kansas ads all seem to be from the 1916-1917 era. Are we not talking about testimony that pre-dates this? I fail to understand a statement about what was being sold in the 1914-15 era based on ads several years later?

[Roger W.]

Harvey Craig was working for Sheaffer when Craig pens were sold and not for Kraker - I hope that is not in dispute. Why would Sheaffer name a pen after one of his employee's - that makes no sense (see below at 1305 where Sheaffer clearly feels that naming a pen after an employee contemptible). Also, the testimony - hundreds of pages that you think are not a real court transcript (for what other purpose would these be typed up), states that he named the pens after his son and before Harvey Craig was in his employ. Neither Kraker nor Harvey Craig disputes this fact anywhere and Lazard has not supplied any reference to such.

 

Roger W.

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by Roger W.

[Roger W.]

Can I get a point of clarification from anyone that might still be reading/

 

The Kansas ads all seem to be from the 1916-1917 era. Are we not talking about testimony that pre-dates this? I fail to understand a statement about what was being sold in the 1914-15 era based on ads several years later?

That's right, all of the testimony predates the ads so ads stating that they are lever filling in 1916 have no bearing to the discussion.

 

Roger W.

[Roger W.]

Reading the Spanish site I note that Lazard is basing his information on the American Stationer which is a fine start but, illustrates that he has never read any of the actual case files. The American Stationer is not ever going to give the fine details to be found in the actual case transcripts. I can only conclude that Lazard has not done the research that would be necessary to reach the conclusions that he has. The court transcripts for Sheaffer v. Barrett were made available to many collectors over 20 years ago when Mr. Lobb, Esq. came across the case, chased down the transcripts from the archives and painstakingly made annotated copies. One day I should scan the whole thing.

 

Roger W.

[Glenn-SC]

 

Let me disagree, It is evident that I am not obligated to prove anything, because nothing I claim, rather it will be those who have shadows of doubt about an honest person who will have to do it.

 

 

But you are ("obligated to prove"). It is your claim that Sheaffer did not have a Craig sub-brand of pens and made the same.

You have produced no "proof" that Sheaffer did not make the Craig Pens.

You have produced no "proof" that anyone else did make the Craig Pens.

You claim to agree with Mr. Sheaffer's honesty yet make claims that can only be true if Mr. Sheaffer were lying to the Court.

 

Question: if one were making a "sub-brand", which was selling at a price point much lower that your regular product line, would one not make that brand more cheaply (i.e. NOT using the designs, materials, and components of your regular brand) and/or sell them in a different market than were you are attempting to sell your regular brand?

 

Selling the exact same pen design as your regular design (but without your Name Brand on it) but at a lower price point in your home market would only motivate Buyers to buy the less expensive model/brand and "kill" the market for your regular brand.

 

One can only assume that Sheaffer was making some profit (i.e. was not losing money) on the sales of the Craig Brand pens. Selling those pens, oh say 280 miles away, may be a good strategy for not competing with and losing sales of your main brand but still bringing in revenue. And once the good Sales folks had established a pen market 280 miles away then the Marketing people could work that population into buying the higher quality, more expensive, more profitable main brand pens.

Edited January 19, 2019 by Glenn-SC

[inkstainedruth]

I'd read the other site except that my Spanish is totally non-existent (and I'm betting that Google Translate will not get all the nuances of legalese).

My husband is rapidly coming to the conclusion that RamonCampos just wants attention and that people should stop trying to argue with him....

Me? Right about now, I'm reminded of this....

In other words, pass the popcorn....

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[FarmBoy]

Ruth-

 

Google 2002 Talladega NASCAR

[Tweel]

In other words, pass the popcorn....

 

Yes, it's been quite the popcorn fest.

 

Right about now, I'm reminded of this....

 

And I'm reminded of the "birthers".

[Lazard 20]

Now, while the Harvey Craig fountain pens 1914/18 wait for a few days, I will try to demolish the shadows of doubt poured on Walter Sheaffer in the web article in question; so I afirm.

 

1) That Kraker and Craig infringed the patent of Walter Sheaffer very clearly and without any shadow of a doubt.

 

2) It must be held that Walter Sheaffer established a conceived of his double-bar filling system as early as January, 1912 since this was prior to the employment of Craig.

 

3) Guity Craig's claimed to nearly a year after he knew Sheaffer filed his application, and then only at the suggestion of Kraker.

 

4) Sheaffer was a man of experience in the manufacturing of pens; Craig was an simple employee.

 

5) These circumstances crearly in favor of Walter Sheaffer, and they tend to show that Craig’s claim was an afterthought, produced or stimulated by George M. Kraker ( Sheaffer´s enemy and ex-partner)

 

6) Craig was still in the employ of the Sheaffer Co., and had not as yet given any idea of his intention to but after the sale of the Kraker stocks

Someone disagrees with these claims?

Edited January 20, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

I moved the post above from the Sheaffer photo thread - it does not belong there.

[FarmBoy]

Ramon

 

I believe for your new list of affirmations, you assume a truth that Craig was an independent pen company and NOT a part of Sheaffer. Since the opposite is factually proven, most readers that are interested in this history, are having difficulty giving any credibility to the commentary.

 

I would suggest that a detailed timeline of events may help as a starting point for others less familiar with the historical record. Could you start such a timeline, including not just dates but the source that includes key events such as when Mr Craig became a Sheaffer employee, etc.

[PenHero]

Now, while the Harvey Craig fountain pens 1914/18 wait for a few days, I will try to demolish the shadows of doubt poured on Walter Sheaffer in the web article in question; so I afirm.

 

1) That Kraker and Craig infringed the patent of Walter Sheaffer very clearly and without any shadow of a doubt.

 

2) It must be held that Walter Sheaffer established a conceived of his double-bar filling system as early as January, 1912 since this was prior to the employment of Craig.

 

3) Guity Craig's claimed to nearly a year after he knew Sheaffer filed his application, and then only at the suggestion of Kraker.

 

4) Sheaffer was a man of experience in the manufacturing of pens; Craig was an simple employee.

 

5) These circumstances crearly in favor of Walter Sheaffer, and they tend to show that Craig’s claim was an afterthought, produced or stimulated by George M. Kraker ( Sheaffer´s enemy and ex-partner)

 

6) Craig was still in the employ of the Sheaffer Co., and had not as yet given any idea of his intention to but after the sale of the Kraker stocks

Someone disagrees with these claims?

 

This really should be the beginning of a new thread.

[Glenn-SC]

 

This really should be the beginning of a new thread.

 

I am assuming that this will snake around and reconnect with the "There is no reason to believe Craig Pens were made by Sheaffer" train of thought.

The mental gymnastics required to to successfully do so should prove impressive.