Why Craig Was A Sheaffer Sub-Brand

[PenHero]

 

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.

 

 

It would be better as a new thread - I will watch that.

[Lazard 20]

Edited January 21, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Lazard 20]

 

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.

 

Hi, you will see this week that the truth has always been here; right under our noses. In a week you will see that it is evident from simple observation; intelligence is not involved.

[Glenn-SC]

 

intelligence is not involved.

 

For once I agree with you 100%!

[Lazard 20]

Daniel in Spanish pen forum asked yesterday: Who do you think made the plastic Craig pens from the 1920s and 1930s, some of which are identical to Sheaffer models?

 

And I, in turn, ask here?;

 

Maybe Sheaffer´S because from 1918* Sheaffer acquired the rights and equipment of Harvey CRAIG and George KRAKER in Kansas City? for example.

 

Have you ever asked yourself why preciselly the Sheaffer´S clip is not mounted in first hard rubber CRAIG pens and yes later?

 

 

 

* Do not forget that we are clearly talking from start topics about Craig pens 1914 to early 1918 (preciselly when Walter acquired Kraker pen factory in Kansas City)

Edited January 21, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

How do you explain this Sheaffer sub-brand?

 

http://penhero.com/Temp/WaspVacuumFil_1280_09.jpg

 

Thanks!

[PenHero]

Daniel in Spanish pen forum asked yesterday: Who do you think made the plastic Craig pens from the 1920s and 1930s, some of which are identical to Sheaffer models?

 

And I, in turn, ask here?;

 

Maybe Sheaffer´S because from 1918* Sheaffer acquired the rights and equipment of Harvey CRAIG and George KRAKER in Kansas City? for example.

 

Have you ever asked yourself why preciselly the Sheaffer´S clip is not mounted in first hard rubber CRAIG pens and yes later?

 

 

 

* Do not forget that we are clearly talking from start topics about Craig pens 1914 to early 1918 (preciselly when Walter acquired Kraker pen factory in Kansas City)

 

 

You keep ignoring evidence that Sheaffer made Craig pens starting in 1912.

 

You seem unable to accept the facts and you continue to fail to offer evidence to support your claim that Sheaffer did not make Craig pens prior to 1918.

 

[PenHero]

 

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.

 

 

And here we are again.

[FarmBoy]

Let’s try this: When was HG Craig employed WA Sheaffer?

[PenHero]

Let’s try this: When was HG Craig employed WA Sheaffer?

 

According to Daniel Kirchheimer, Sheaffer was already selling Craig pens by June, 1912 and did not employ Harvey Craig until November, 1912.

[Roger W.]

 

Have you ever asked yourself why preciselly the Sheaffer´S clip is not mounted in first hard rubber CRAIG pens and yes later?

 

 

 

* Do not forget that we are clearly talking from start topics about Craig pens 1914 to early 1918 (preciselly when Walter acquired Kraker pen factory in Kansas City)

The Sheaffer clip is not regularly mounted on the Sheaffer pen - it is an added feature that costs extra so it is no surprise that it is not mounted on the Craig. It make no sense that Sheaffer would have named this pen for a mere employee which is precisely what his testimony states. Why do you think the Craig would have been named for an employee, answer me that? Actually, you have not stated who was making these pens in 1912. Do you propose that Harvey Craig was buying the parts from Schnell himself and assembly them on his off hours? Ridiculous!

 

Roger W.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Roger W.

[PenHero]

The Sheaffer clip is not regularly mounted on the Sheaffer pen - it is an added feature that costs extra so it is no surprise that it is not mounted on the Craig. It make no sense that Sheaffer would have named this pen for a mere employee which is precisely what his testimony states. Why do you think the Craig would have been named for an employee, answer me that? Actually, you have not stated who was making these pens in 1912. Do you propose that Harvey Craig was buying the parts from Schnell himself and assembly them on his off hours? Ridiculous!

 

Roger W.

 

 

Or possibly that Harvey Craig was making Craig pens BEFORE he started working for Sheaffer in November, 1912 and continued doing this in secret while he worked there. No - didn't happen.

[FarmBoy]

I hope the timeline helps. Knowing the sequence of events eliminates certain possible theories.

[Glenn-SC]

I hope the timeline helps. Knowing the sequence of events eliminates certain possible theories.

 

You have forgotten the following premise ....

 

 

intelligence is not involved.

[Herobrinefly]

 

 

 

Well,here`s something about the "beautiful humped clip" and the "Z" shaped clip.

 

[Lazard 20]

Hi, Jim; about your out of place example with Vacuum I would say with humor that Sheaffer did not have a son named Vacuum so it is not comparable. Really, your comparison is anachronistic - because you present us with a pen from a different time where printing the patents in the holders was beginning to be in disuse while we are talking about hard rubber fountain pen when to stamp holders with patents and origen was something usual.

 

I would not like to leave the subject without talking about the retrospective bias that leads to counter questions.When I ask to myself what a father would think in1912/4 about creating a sub-brand with the name of his son, ignoring surname, provenance and patents it should NOT BE answered with knowledge of what happened next. That is to say, What could have led Walter to create a sub-brand when there was no brand yet? -we have known it later but, e.g., Sheaffer´S could have closed in 1915- and that would think Walter in 1912, when he had not yet manufactured a holder without provenance, to do so and only with the first name no second name of his son. Answering a question about what happened at a particular moment in history by applying knowledge derived from what happened afterwards and wanting to prove something is ridiculous and everyone perceives it as much as people do not expose it for consideration but it is becoming necessary in this topic.

 

The same thing happens on the contrary. You must not analyze The Papers and extract consequences without taking into account what happened then; two different jurisdictions, administrative and civil, and within the latter two instances, First Instance and Appeal; a chief patent examiner and four judges from one of the judicial systems most controlled and prestigious in the world, The American Justice, came to the conclusion after analyzing The Papers and other Papers, studying them for years, knowing, seeing and touching the contenders affirmed and signed that Walter was very honest and Craig and Kraker guilty ... but a web site says otherwise 100 years later and after a crude partial reading of the summary.That is why being the Craig fountain pens 1914/1918 deducted from the same doc that the Sheaffer's honesty should not dissociate these issues, I already requested here and in the post in Spanish that rewriting of this article should be reconsidered. This is not anonymous or free, behind oh that there are people, descendants of Walter Sheaffer that could get a distorted and unfair picture of him.

 

Hi @Herobinefly, a minimum of evidentiary capacity is required; you must locate yourself at the time of manufacturing. SheafferS could have had these patens several years after 1914 -I think so- and before yours indubitable Sheaffer´S pens but nobody has been able to prove that they had them in c.1914 which is what we are talking about, therefore all your work; look for photos, write and upload it is in vain. You should have thought about it: if someone had those patents he would have thrown them in my face and nobody has done it. You should have thought. Please think about it and I'm expect your best reformulated contribution.

Edited January 22, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

Hi, Jim; about your out of place example with Vacuum I would say with humor that Sheaffer did not have a son named Vacuum so it is not comparable. Really, your comparison is anachronistic - because you present us with a pen from a different time where printing the patents in the holders was beginning to be in disuse while we are talking about hard rubber fountain pen when to stamp holders with patents and origen was something usual.

The VACUUM brand example is relevant. One of your first examples of why CRAIG brand pens are not made by Sheaffer is the imprint without any references to Sheaffer, Fort Madison or patents, as on Sheaffer branded pens. Since CRAIG brand pens were made continuously from 1912 into the 1930s and VACUUM brand pens were made in the 1930s, this shows consistency by Sheaffer over many years, deliberately obscuring who made these low price point pens that included features not found on Sheaffer brand pens.

I would not like to leave the subject without talking about the retrospective bias that leads to counter questions.When I ask to myself what a father would think in1912/4 about creating a sub-brand with the name of his son, ignoring surname, provenance and patents it should NOT BE answered with knowledge of what happened next.That is to say, What could have led Walter to create a sub-brand when there was no brand yet? -we have known it later but, e.g., Sheaffer´S could have closed in 1915- and that would think Walter in 1912, when he had not yet manufactured a holder without provenance, to do so and only with the first name no second name of his son. Answering a question about what happened at a particular moment in history by applying knowledge derived from what happened afterwards and wanting to prove something is ridiculous and everyone perceives it as much as people do not expose it for consideration but it is becoming necessary in this topic.

Let's do some chronology here. Sheaffer was already selling Craig pens by June, 1912 and did not employ Harvey Craig until November, 1912. Walter A. Sheaffer testified that he named Craig brand pens after his son Craig. Sheaffer clearly made Craig brand pens from 1918 on. There is simply no evidence that Sheaffer stopped making Craig brand pens between 1914 and 1918 and some other party, Harvey Craig or Kraker made them, and then after winning a lawsuit Sheaffer started making them again. That is nonsense and there is no evidence for it.

The same thing happens on the contrary. You must not analyze The Papers and extract consequences without taking into account what happened then; two different jurisdictions, administrative and civil, and within the latter two instances, First Instance and Appeal; a chief patent examiner and four judges from one of the judicial systems most controlled and prestigious in the world, The American Justice, came to the conclusion after analyzing The Papers and other Papers, studying them for years, knowing, seeing and touching the contenders affirmed and signed that Walter was very honest and Craig and Kraker guilty ... but a web site says otherwise 100 years later and after a crude partial reading of the summary.That is why being the Craig fountain pens 1914/1918 deducted from the same doc that the Sheaffer's honesty should not dissociate these issues, I already requested here and in the post in Spanish that rewriting of this article should be reconsidered. This is not anonymous or free, behind oh that there are people, descendants of Walter Sheaffer that could get a distorted and unfair picture of him.

The "Papers" as you call them are from testimony given by Walter A. Sheaffer in the lawsuit filed by Sheaffer against C. E. Barrett. Kraker was not an original defendant in this lawsuit.

Hi @Herobinefly, a minimum of evidentiary capacity is required; you must locate yourself at the time of manufacturing. SheafferS could have had these patens several years after 1914 -I think so- and before yours indubitable Sheaffer´S pens but nobody has been able to prove that they had them in c.1914 which is what we are talking about, therefore all your work; look for photos, write and upload it is in vain. You should have thought about it: if someone had those patents he would have thrown them in my face and nobody has done it. You should have thought. Please think about it and I'm expect your best reformulated contribution.

Sheaffer's patents have nothing to do with Craig pens. The original Craig pens from 1912 don't use any Sheaffer patents.

[PenHero]

For all following this thread, let me recap:

 

This is the original thesis of this thread by RamonCampos:

 

I do not believe that Craig pens was born as a Sheaffer´S sub-brand; in the same way I do not believe that this Craig commercial name comes from Craig Sheaffer.

 

NONE of the many, many, many arguments including images of imprints, patents, images of pen parts, and so on, support the original thesis.

 

This thesis is FALSE. Craig pens, from 1912 onward, were a Sheaffer sub-brand and were named after Craig Sheaffer.

[crescentfiller]

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?

 

 

 

Absolutely!

[crescentfiller]

"Mistah Kurtz—he dead" (Conrad 117).

 

(And so is this horse!)