Why Craig Was A Sheaffer Sub-Brand

[Karmachanic]

 

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.

 

Having established that some time ago why do y'all keep fruitlessly responding? Entertaining though.

[JonSzanto]

[bsenn]

 

 

I just wasted 20 minutes watching that thing... But that's still less time than I spent reading the rest of the thread.

[CS388]

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.

 

Excellent summation. Thanks.

 

JonSzanto: What a superb animation/GIF/film - or whatever it is? Mesmeric and satisfying. Is it your own work?

[JonSzanto]

JonSzanto: What a superb animation/GIF/film - or whatever it is? Mesmeric and satisfying. Is it your own work?

 

Mine? Not in the least! I follow Andreas Wannerstedt on Instagram, but you can check out his astounding motion graphics here. I picked a pretty... sedate example.

Edited January 23, 2019 by JonSzanto

[Lazard 20]

As preamble, I would say to those who get bored with my comments, and they have no arguments to make, remind them that FPN gives them the option of not seeing my posts. Use it, press the button, and do not waste your time free reading me; Surely they will find better things to do. If they spent more time thinking than to criticize they could have seen that my insistently requesting the cover book of this papers to show errors - as in dates and in appearing- I knew what we were talking about and of course much more than them about the matter that concerns us here.

 

Let's go to the bullseye -as Walter would say-; the text on which it has been based those who say that Craig pens, in 1912 and after was a sub-brand of Sheaffer's and where Walter supposedly states that Graig pen name was for his son is, as you can appreciate and such and as I have been affirming since the beginning of the topic, a NOT official transcription, instead it is a copy dictated to the ear in turn of another lost copy where mistakes are frequent both in dates and in names; Joseph Kraker, e.g., does not exist and no one Judge would confuse one person named Joe whith other named Geo -instead of Geo Kraker codefendant in this suit- as apparently it seem to be happened.

 

Proving that it is a bad copy taken to the ear of onother copy, I will accept that it is a bad copy dictated to the ear of an existing copy of a certain deposition law.

 

On it we can see that Walter does not talk about Craig pens thought like a sub-brand but talks about them in past tense; past tense, preterit in 1915. That Walter is referring to a few fountain pens from 1912 is totally compatible with a relevant paragraph, this one if indubitable, contained in the sentence and that I allow myself to transcribe here:

 

“Certain models were in the winter of 1912-1913. The parties dificr in some respects as to who worked upon made these models, and as to the time they were made; but they agree they were completed between December. 1912, and February, 1913.”

 

Now, please, let us leave out of our mind the retrospective bias and let's place ourselves in 1915. In this moment Walter Sheaffer was not a powerful businessman, not even a bourgeois, on the contrary he was an American of the middle class who until a few months before had had to sell chickens, pianos, clocks and cutlery to get your family on going; a man with his own hands full of corns that sees his life threatened with a plot according to the sentences signed not by one but by 5 (five) honest judges.

 

To better understand this situation at the foot I attach a chronology, quite accurate if not exact, of those first years of Sheaffer where no one could know that Sheaffer would end up creating Lifetimes, nor that he would have a factory in Kansas, nor that, over time he would have sub-brands-. Now, with this certain premises, look at yourself see the errors, the past tense and demostration that is not a transcription that I have pointed out.

 

Writing chronology of the events...

.

Edited January 23, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Glenn-SC]

You continue to raise the same "facts" that point to Sheaffer making non-lever pens under the "Craig" sub-brand name in the 1912 to 1913 time frame and then enter into evidence advertisements from to 1915 to 1916 that 1) Don't provide any evidence or claim as to who did make them (or that Sheaffer didn't) and 2) state that at that time some were lever fillers.

 

Your advertisements are no proof that the prior pens were not eye-droppers (as stated in the Sheaffer testimony) or that anyone else other than Sheaffer made them.

 

And you talk about "pride" of ownership and placing ones name on a pen. If Craig was making these pens and so proud of them why do these ads not once state "Made by The Craig Fountain Pen Company of (some location)"?

Edited January 23, 2019 by Glenn-SC

[Lazard 20]

After this reading the situation would be coherent and compatible, at this moment I do not affirm anything, I repeat; It would be compatible and coherent with this situation:

-1912/1913 Craig pens at Fort Madison in workshop with Harvey Craig as Sheaffer´S superintendent.

-1914 to 1918. The period I am analyzing: Craig pens in Kansas -only are ads there- where preciselly Harvey Craig was working. In this period Craig pens were very little known and pens have no association with Sheaffer'S.

-1918/1921. Craig fountains in Kansas as a sub-brand of Walter Sheaffer after acquiring facilities and assets as industrial property of the Kraker factory and already now coming to all USA as being known as Sheaffer´S sub-brand. From this date, and not before, there are ads relating them with Sheaffer'S

 

-1922 and up. After move utilities and employees from Kansas´factory (ex Kraker and Harvey Craig factory until 1918) and concentrated in Fort Madison and already well established as Sheaffer´S sub-brand.

 

This chronology would also be consistent with the non-Sheaffers clips style previous to Sheaffer´S clips seen in the Craig pens and with the diversity models offered.

Edited January 23, 2019 by RamonCampos

[PenHero]

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

You simply have not offered any proof that anyone other than Sheaffer made Craig pens.

[Glenn-SC]

-1914 to 1918. The period I am analyzing: Craig pens in Kansas -only are ads there- where preciselly Harvey Craig was working. In this period Craig pens were very little known and pens have no association with Sheaffer'S.

 

1) How do you know that Craig pens were only advertised in Kansas? Have you researched the entire US for that time frame and found no other advertisements for Craig?

2) Even if the Craig Pens were only advertised in a single limited area, what proof do you have that these advertisements were not published by Sheaffers?

 

Also, once admitting that Sheaffer make Craig Pens prior to 1915, why would they cease production in 1915-1918 and let Craig make them? And if so, what evidence/proof of this event do you have?

[Lazard 20]

For those who are interested in forming their own opinion about the honesty of Walter Sheaffer here they can read firsthand what appened without need Interpreters of the Truth. Whom wrote, studied an judged The Papers in original without errors and other depositions law inherent of this case, knew the facts and their interpreters, listening to each other and deliberated for 30 months. They knew the truth; and the truth is the one that follows.

“WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT APPELLANT KRAKER Y GARRETT WAS GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT THEREOF, AND THE APPELLEE WALTER SHEAFFER IS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND AN ACCOUNTING AS TO BOTH APPELLANTS.” BAKER, KOOLSAAT & ALSCHULER CIRCUIT JUDGES.

 

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38822/m1/87/zoom/?resolution=2&lat=3374&lon=750

 

Deducted from the judged, sentenced and signed, we have been obliged to correct the contrary opinion of certain website since it is unfounded, false and contrary to law and considering that, previously, this website did not want to correct by itself when I prayed its reconsideration.

 

“Walter A. Sheaffer’s in his 1937 autobiography is presented yourself as the vindication of an honest businessman and inventor, defending himself against the slick machinations of unscrupulous rivals and backstabbing partners (certain and ratified by the American Administration represented by the chief examiner of interference on patents and ratified by four judges of the American Justice) . A rather different picture emerged, however, as Jim dug into the 2000-odd (diferent picture?, odd? A deposition law is odd?; a deposition law(1) is normal, necessary I would say, in the preliminary proceedings studied in original, not copy of copy taken to the ear, by the judges, who claimed and signed that Sheaffer was very honest and Kraker/Craig infringing).

 

(1) A deposition law are carried out before trial begins has by finality find out what the witness knows. The intent is to allow the parties to learn all of the facts before the trial, so that no one is surprised once that witness is on the stand. The Papers is a copy of copy taken to the ear of one of diferents depositions law that all together, with others testimonies of employees and agents involved in this trail case judged, sentenced and signed by the US Administration and US Justice with the known result. The Papers contains nothing that the judges and patent chief examiner, in original, did not know.

 

The FPN´s observers will appreciate in this chronology that I have elaborated for them ast Walter Sheaffer is (present; we are in 1912/13) working on improving HIS filling system in HIS facilities, with HIS handicraft employees under HIS orders, with HIS money, and with the money of HIS banker to obtain HIS patents… and how the Kraker plot is mounted much later.

SHEAFFER´S CHRONOLOGY

DATE AFFAIR

1908.03.02 Sheaffer 896,861 single bar patent witness Lerche; his employee handicraft watchmaker.

1912 Sheaffer early began the manufacture of fountain pens

1912.03.21 Sheaffer 1,046,660 filled patent improve single bar. Witness Brewster; his banker.

1912.03.21 Sheaffer 1,064,098 filled patent clip. Witness Brewster; his banker. 1912.06.01 Sheaffer star to sell.

1912.11.18 Sheaffer 7,114,052, fifilled patent improve single bar.

1913,01.01 Sheaffer´S incorporated & capitalized at 30,000$. Walter Sheaffer as majority partner,with absolute control and alma mater and so accepted by the other partners.

1913.02.19 Sheaffer 1,118,240 Patent filled doble bar witness Hilton/Stuard Sheaffer´s patent agent

1913.03.13 Sheaffer 1,085,174. Patent filled clip Hilton/Stuard Sheaffer´s patent agent.

1914.04.09 Craig/Kraker, after leaving Sheaffer'S, 1,242,323. filled patent their double-bar copying Sheaffer´s double-bar.

1914.04.09 Graig/Kraker inmediatly, during the same day, filled patent interference.

1914.06.13 Kraker 1,111,469 clip patent filled copying Sheaffer´S clip

1914.08.01 Pedido de 10.000 holder de Kraker a Garrett x 5.000$

1914.12.02 Sheaffer, watching the plot agains he, suit vs Garrett/Kraker who was infringing his patent...and betraying Sheaffer because Kraker did not go to Kansas as a representative of Sheaffer according to the agreement, but to make his own brand in violation of agreements and pens with double bar violating his patents.

1914.12.23 Kraker 1,199,998 Patent filled lever filler

1914.12.28 Kraker 1,164,654 Patent filled bar.

1916.02.01 Final hearing patent interference.

1916.06.26 Garrett 1,292,736 Patent filled single bar

1916.08.22 Sheaffer left K.O. to Craig in Decisión examiner interference patent.

1917.05.23 Sheaffer left K.O. to Kraker in Sentence Judge Landis first instance.

1918.02.01 Sheaffer kick out of quadrilaeal canvas to Kraker in Apellation sentence Judges Baker, Kholsaat & Alschuler.

1918 After sentence Sheaffer adquires Kraker´s factory in Kansas subrogating employees.

 

1921.30.12 Closing & transfer Kansas´ factory.

 

Finished my exhibition and verified the honesty without fault of Walter Sheaffer I will dedicate myself to the Craig pens from 1914 to 1918 in next posts (very; very few; I am finishing).

Edited January 25, 2019 by RamonCampos

[Tweel]

A rather different picture emerged, however, as Jim dug into the 2000-odd (odd? A deposition law is odd?; a deposition law(1) is normal, necessary I would say, in the preliminary proceedings studied in original, not copy of copy taken to the ear, by the judges, who claimed and signed that Sheaffer was very honest and Kraker/Craig infringing).

 

The sentence on that page reads "A rather different picture emerged, however, as Jim dug into the 2000-odd pages of testimony, dating between 1914 and 1916." 2000-odd means "2000-and-some", or "approximately 2000".

 

BTW, there's no such thing as a "deposition law".

[PenHero]

For those who are interested in forming their own opinion about the honesty of Walter Sheaffer here they can read firsthand what appened without need Interpreters of the Truth. Whom wrote, studied an judged The Papers in original without errors and other depositions law inherent of this case, knew the facts and their interpreters, listening to each other and deliberated for 30 months. They knew the truth; and the truth is the one that follows.

“WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT APPELLANT KRAKER Y GARRETT WAS GUILTY OF CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT THEREOF, AND THE APPELLEE WALTER SHEAFFER IS ENTITLED TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND AN ACCOUNTING AS TO BOTH APPELLANTS.” BAKER, KOOLSAAT & ALSCHULER CIRCUIT JUDGES.

 

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38822/m1/87/zoom/?resolution=2&lat=3374&lon=750

 

Deducted from the judged, sentenced and signed, we have been obliged to correct the contrary opinion of certain website since it is unfounded, false and contrary to law and considering that, previously, this website did not want to correct by itself when I prayed its reconsideration.

 

“Walter A. Sheaffer’s in his 1937 autobiography is presented yourself as the vindication of an honest businessman and inventor, defending himself against the slick machinations of unscrupulous rivals and backstabbing partners (certain and ratified by the American Administration represented by the chief examiner of interference on patents and ratified by four judges of the American Justice) . A rather different picture emerged, however, as Jim dug into the 2000-odd (diferent picture?, odd? A deposition law is odd?; a deposition law(1) is normal, necessary I would say, in the preliminary proceedings studied in original, not copy of copy taken to the ear, by the judges, who claimed and signed that Sheaffer was very honest and Kraker/Craig infringing).

 

(1) A deposition law are carried out before trial begins has by finality find out what the witness knows. The intent is to allow the parties to learn all of the facts before the trial, so that no one is surprised once that witness is on the stand. The Papers is a copy of copy taken to the ear of one of diferents depositions law that all together, with others testimonies of employees and agents involved in this trail case judged, sentenced and signed by the US Administration and US Justice with the known result. The Papers contains nothing that the judges and patent chief examiner, in original, did not know.

 

The FPN´s observers will appreciate in this chronology that I have elaborated for them ast Walter Sheaffer is (present; we are in 1912/13) working on improving HIS filling system in HIS facilities, with HIS handicraft employees under HIS orders, with HIS money, and with the money of HIS banker to obtain HIS patents… and how the Kraker plot is mounted much later.

SHEAFFER´S CHRONOLOGY

DATE AFFAIR

1908.03.02 Sheaffer 896,861 single bar patent witness Lerche; his employee handicraft watchmaker.

1912 Sheaffer early began the manufacture of fountain pens

1912.03.21 Sheaffer 1,046,660 filled patent improve single bar. Witness Brewster; his banker.

1912.03.21 Sheaffer 1,064,098 filled patent clip. Witness Brewster; his banker. 1912.06.01 Sheaffer star to sell.

1912.11.18 Sheaffer 7,114,052, fifilled patent improve single bar.

1913,01.01 Sheaffer´S incorporated & capitalized at 30,000$. Walter Sheaffer as majority partner,with absolute control and alma mater and so accepted by the other partners.

1913.02.19 Sheaffer 1,118,240 Patent filled doble bar witness Hilton/Stuard Sheaffer´s patent agent

1913.03.13 Sheaffer 1,085,174. Patent filled clip Hilton/Stuard Sheaffer´s patent agent.

1914.04.09 Craig/Kraker, after leaving Sheaffer'S, 1,242,323. filled patent their double-bar copying Sheaffer´s double-bar.

1914.04.09 Graig/Kraker inmediatly, during the same day, filled patent interference.

1914.06.13 Kraker 1,111,469 clip patent filled copying Sheaffer´S clip

1914.08.01 Pedido de 10.000 holder de Kraker a Garrett x 5.000$

1914.12.02 Sheaffer, watching the plot agains he, suit vs Garrett/Kraker who was infringing his patent...and betraying Sheaffer because Kraker did not go to Kansas as a representative of Sheaffer according to the agreement, but to make his own brand in violation of agreements and pens with double bar violating his patents.

1914.12.23 Kraker 1,199,998 Patent filled lever filler

1914.12.28 Kraker 1,164,654 Patent filled bar.

1916.02.01 Final hearing patent interference.

1916.06.26 Garrett 1,292,736 Patent filled single bar

1916.08.22 Sheaffer left K.O. to Craig in Decisión examiner interference patent.

1917.05.23 Sheaffer left K.O. to Kraker in Sentence Judge Landis first instance.

1918.02.01 Sheaffer kick out of quadrilaeal canvas to Kraker in Apellation sentence Judges Baker, Kholsaat & Alschuler.

1918 After sentence Sheaffer adquires Kraker´s factory in Kansas subrogating employees.

 

1921.30.12 Closing & transfer Kansas´ factory.

 

Finished my exhibition and verified the honesty without fault of Walter Sheaffer I will dedicate myself to the Craig pens from 1914 to 1918 in next posts (very; very few; I am finishing).

 

 

Who in this thread on FPN has said Walter A. Sheaffer is not honest? Please be specific.

 

How does anything in your latest post have anything to do with Craig pens?

 

What do you expect to show about Craig pens from 1914 to 1918 that would prove anything other than they were made by Sheaffer?

 

The biggest problem with your posts is that they don't support your original thesis:

 

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.

 

Instead, you post huge amounts of non relevant facts, you repeat yourself, and you make tangental arguments.

 

You still have failed to prove your thesis.

[Glenn-SC]

 

Finished my exhibition and verified the honesty without fault of Walter Sheaffer I will dedicate myself to the Craig pens from 1914 to 1918 in next posts (very; very few; I am finishing).

 

I highly doubt it. What could you possibly have saved from your first 28 (sometimes agonizingly long and disconnected) posts on this subject that you will present in the "very few next posts" that would possibly bring either new information to the discussion or a logical argument that would prove your point?

 

[lazard]

A proof that futures shareholders were already partners from the beginning and before Sheaffer´S have been incorporated in Jan 01, 1913.

 

 

[lazard]

Craig vs. Sheaffer patent numbers for those who want to read the differences between them click here https://patents.google.com/

 

[PenHero]

A proof that futures shareholders were already partners from the beginning and before Sheaffer´S have been incorporated in Jan 01, 1913.

 

 

 

 

How exactly does this prove that these two people were Walter A. Sheaffer's business partners before incorporation? These documents only say they are witnesses to the patent application. To prove they are partners you would need a partnership contract or a business document attesting they are partners.

 

What is the point of this anyway?

 

This does not support your original thesis:

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.

Another non relevant fact.

[PenHero]

Craig vs. Sheaffer patent numbers for those who want to read the differences between them click here https://patents.google.com/

 

This does not prove that Harvey Craig made pens branded CRAIG.

[PenHero]

Hi, RamonCampos,

 

I challenge you: Show a dated business document that proves Harvey Craig offered CRAIG brand pens for sale claiming HE made them. A letter, a price list, a catalog, an invoice will do, but it needs to say that Craig manufactured the pens.

 

Don't post anything else unless you can do this.

 

You obviously can't which explains all the nonsense you are posting.

 

You have not proven your claim:

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.

This claim is FALSE.

[corgicoupe]

Why does RamonCampos suddenly become Lazard?