Blackboard

April 30, 2014

Waterman’s First RHR Pens





[Posted on L&P on Mar 14, 2013.] 
        On May 18, 2012, I wrote that the red hard rubber Waterman’s pens probably made their first appearance sometime between 1898 and 1907, and as an apology for that large span I cited the lack of evidence caused by the unfortunate gap in the volumes of The American Stationer online.  But then finally the following ad made its appearance in Am. Stat., Mar 23, 1907, p.29, and I used that date as the end-limit for the span of years.
        I cited the ad again on Mar 14, 2013, calling it the first Waterman’s red hard rubber pen ad, and narrowed the introduction down further, saying that the pens were probably introduced sometime around late 1906 and early 1907.  The #14 pen is curiously said to be, “This colored pen used largely for red ink”.  This phrase about the red ink is used in similar ads up until the ad on Aug 28, 1909, p.20.  Also notice that the #12 Plain pen, the #16 Filigree pen, and the over-sized #18 pen were also advertized as being available in Cardinal.  And beneath each nib there is a note that says “Also made in sizes listed”, which means that the whole range of pen sizes was available in Cardinal.  But why is it the only one to be used with red ink?
        The clue that gives it away as amongst the first of the RHR pens is this strange limitation of the pen’s use with a certain color of ink, as a type of color coding for the ink contained within, sort of like the Parker Nurse Pen with its BHR holder and RHR ends.  All of which makes it sound like the creation of the marketing and design departments at the time of the first introduction of the color.  Little did they realize that the color would take off and find a life of its own.  The customers will always tell the marketers what they think, and the buyers told the sellers that they would use whatever color of ink they pleased, and put the pen to whatever use they chose.
        There is a comparable ad aimed at the stationery trade in Am. Stat., Mar 24, 1906, p.11, that shows all the pen models and styles, but it mentions only “Plain and Mottled” colors.  Well, that’s a start, at least, because the mottled rod stock back then was almost half Cardinal.  The exact same ad appears again on Aug 18, 1906, p.42, so no new Cardinal yet.  The big new feature that the other ads from this period were touting was the new “Clip-Cap”.  Even the “Stock Assortment Blank” order form pictured in the cover ad on Feb 23, 1907 mentions the “Clip-Cap”, but doesn’t acknowledge the new Cardinal pens, yet.  It even lists two models of the Remex pen, the No. 100 and No. 101, but no Cardinal, not before the ad on Mar 23, 1907.  Unless or until someone finds an earlier ad, I remain adamantly resolved on a late-1906 or early-1907 introduction date.
        In reference to what I called a “strange limitation of the pen’s use with a certain color of ink”, it might be argued by some that cardinal hard rubber pens were chiefly marketed to bookkeepers and business people who wanted a visual cue for which pen held red ink for underlinings and rubrications in ledger entries. 
Now, it might seem like a strange limitation to me only with the benefit of hind sight, but if the red pens are just for bookkeepers and secretaries, why offer them in the larger and more expensive range of sizes and filigrees?  We might have been able to get access to better evidence, but the Google Books Am. Stat. time machine is on the fritz, and seems to work only in fits and starts, one gap at a time.  In any case, by 1909, within a couple of years, Watermans did stop using that ad line about red ink altogether.
         On July 17, 2013, I found a way to partially fill in the missing gap of Am. Stat. issues from 1898 to 1905 by substituting issues of another magazine found in the Internet Archive “Wayback Machine”.  It’s a monthly Canadian stationery magazine that went under a few different names over the years, including Bookseller & Stationer.  I searched for all the Waterman’s ads, and so far I’ve found around 150 ads and articles and mentions of Waterman’s in Canada in the period 1884 to 1922.  Some unique ads showed up, but here are the relevant ones for our purposes.
        In September 1901, this gorgeous ad showed up, but then nothing else until 1904, when Waterman’s opened up their first factory and offices in Montreal at different addresses.  Notice that the address in this ad is still the New York head office.  Five ads, articles, and mentions of Waterman’s show up in 1904, including an announcement that they were becoming the agent for Koh-I-Noor pencils in Canada, and in August 1905, the first ad with a line-up of pens shows up, but with no Cardinal pens mentioned, yet, only mottled ones.  Now, and hereafter, the address in the ads is the Montreal address.  A Christmas ad shows up in November 1905 with a group of pens bunched together, but no Cardinals.  One of those split-half-and-half ads shared with Koh-I-Noor shows up in December 1905 and January 1906, and there’s a line-up of pens in the Waterman’s portion, but still no Cardinals.  Most of the ads in 1906, including this June ad, were concerned with the newly introduced “Clip-Cap” clip, so if there were any Cardinals that year, they would have been a distraction and would not have been mentioned.  In March and April, this same small pen-line-up ad shows up without any Cardinals.  In October and November, the same large pen-line-up ad shows up, and it’s the last chance before Christmas, but still no Cardinals, only mottles.  The December ad is a Santa ad with room for only the plain pen from the line-up, and with one last chance for a “Last Minute Order”, and still no Cardinal.
        So here we are, back in 1907 again, and finally the Cardinals start to appear in the line-up ads, but this time we get to move the time frame back a little.  In my previous assessment, I said that the Cardinals first appeared in the Mar 23, 1907 ad in Am. Stat., but now we have to move that date back to
February 1907 with the first appearance of that same ad in Book. & Stat.  The same ad is repeated in October, and two new line-up ads with Cardinals show up in November and December.
        I wonder whether anything will show up somewhere else to help move the date back even further into 1906, or more.  What we really need are all the issues of
The American Stationer and The Pen Prophet online.  The nice thing about almost all of those ads geared toward the stationery trade is that they include a line such as, “Write us and we will send you a catalogue”, which means that they probably published a new stationers’ catalogue almost every year, and there is still a lot more out there to be found.

Addendum, April 24, 2014.
        Well, low and behold, more volumes of some other stationery magazines from the period 1897 to 1906 showed up on Hathi Trust, and they serve to corroborate some of the above dates.  Only three line-up ads from that period showed up, but they’re helpful.  The ad in the New England Stationer,
Dec 1900, p.7, is a line-up ad with nothing but black pens and fancy overlays, but no cardinals and no mottles.  The ad in Walden’s Stationer, Oct 10, 1903, p.13, is another line-up ad with nothing but black pens and fancy overlays, but still no cardinals and no mottles.  The ad in Walden’s Stationer, Nov 10, 1906, p.12, is another line-up ad, but this time, as well as the black pens and fancy overlays, the mottles finally show up, but no cardinals, which makes it highly likely that they showed up sometime between November 1906 and February 1907.
  
 


 George Kovalenko.



.
 

April 27, 2014

Geyer’s Stationer

 


Here’s a list of the Geyer’s Stationer links from the Hathi Trust to augment David Nishimura’s 
list from Google.  If you click on this link to three magazines on Hathi, you will see that those magazines are related by “Previous Title” and “New Title”.  New England Stationer was taken over by Waldens Stationer, but I cant figure out why Geyers is also listed with the bunch.

Geyer’s Stationer 
v. 29, Jan-June 1900
v. 30, missing

v. 31, Jan-June 1901
v. 32, missing

v. 33, Jan-June 1902 
v. 34, July-Dec 1902 
v. 35, Jan-June 1903  
v. 36, July-Dec 1903
v. 37, missing

v. 38, July-Dec 1904 
v. 39, Jan-June 1905  
v. 40, July-Dec 1905  
v. 41, Jan-June 1906
v. 42, July-Dec 1906
v. 43, Jan-June 1907
v. 44, July-Dec 1907
v. 45, missing
v. 46, July-Dec 1908
v. 47, Jan-June 1909
v. 48, July-Dec 1909
vols. 49-50, missing

v. 51, Jan-June 1911
v. 52, missing

v. 53, Jan-June 1912
v. 54, July-Dec 1912
v. 55, Jan-June 1913
v. 56, Jul-Dec 1913
v. 57, missing 
v. 58, Jan-June 1915
v. 59, July-Dec 1915
v. 59, Jul-Dec 1915, Google
v. 60, missing
v. 61, Jan-June 1916
v. 62, July-Dec 1916
v. 63, Jan-June 1917
v. 64, July-Dec 1917
v. 65, Jan-June 1918
v. 66, July-Dec 1918
v. 67, Jan-June 1919
v. 68, July-Dec 1919
v. 69, Jan-June 1920
v. 70, July-Dec 1920
v. 71, Jan-June 1921
v. 72, July-Dec 1921 
v. 73, Jan-June 1922
v. 74, July-Dec 1922 

George Kovalenko.



.

New England, & Walden’s Stationer


 

Here’s a list of New England Stationer and Walden’s Stationer links from the Hathi Trust.  If you click on this link to three magazines on Hathi, you will see that those magazines are related by “Previous Title” and “New Title”.  New England was taken over by Waldens, but I can't figure out why Geyers Stationer is also listed with the bunch.

New England Stationer
v. 11, Mar 1897-Feb 1898
v. 12, Mar 1898-Feb 1899
v. 13, Mar 1899-Feb 1900
v. 14, Mar 1900-Mar 1901
v. 15, Apr 1901-Mar 1902
v. 16, Apr 1902-Jan 1903
no gap, no vols. missing

Walden’s Stationer
v. 19-20, Jan 1903-1904
v. 21-22, Jan 1904-1905
v. 23-24, missing
v. 25-26, Jan-Dec 1906
v. 27-28, Jan-Dec 1907
v. 29-30, Jan-Dec 1908
v. 31, Jan-June 1909
v. 32, missing
v. 33, Jan-June 1910
v. 33, July-Dec 1910
v. 34, Jan-June 1911
v. 34, July-Dec 1911
v. 35, Jan-June 1912
v. 35, July-Dec 1912

George Kovalenko.



.

April 26, 2014

The ‘Pen vs. Sword’ Quote





        When someone wrote on the Zoss List on Oct 27, 1997, “The reason I don’t collect swords is, as we all know, ‘The Pen is mightier than the sword’”, Steve Lehman wrote this reply.  “Sorry for the literary nitpicking, but that ‘pen vs. sword’ quote is one of the most misquoted quotes EVER, and turns the original quote on its head, somewhat.  The real quote is, ‘Under the rule of men entirely just, the pen is mightier than the sword’.  Since in most cases, rulers are not ‘entirely just’ and are far from perfect, the pen is not mightier than the sword.  Unless the pen is actually a pistol, in which case the well aimed pen can be mightier than the sword.”  It’s like saying, “In other words, never”, as Janis wrote on the Afrocity blog on June 25, 2009, after she also used the misquoted version of the quote.  I wonder where she got it.  Steve used the quote again in a post on Zoss on May 18, 1999, concerning steel nibs marked Krupp, saying that maybe the giant steel and armament manufacturer was covering all bets”.  But then Steve got the quote wrong as well, both in 1997 and 1999.  He also misquoted the saying, but I liked his version better.  Let me explain in my round about way.
        I had great fun composing the puzzle.  Acrostic puzzles similar to this one appeared in The Atlantic magazine, and I decided to try to make a similar puzzle with a fountain pen theme.  I started one evening, just to see whether it was possible, and was ready to give up the moment I ended up with an excess of unusable vowels or consonants, or not enough letters.  You can see some of the failed attempts in the “Extra bonus clues” section.  I wrote the whole thing out with a fountain pen, and finished it in one manic night, ending up with the completed acrostic at about 4:00 AM.  The sun was just rising, so it must have been a spring or summer night, and you could call it a manic midsummer night’s wet ink dream.
        After my acrostic puzzle was published in the Writing Equipment Society Journal, no.57, Spring 2000, p.52, I got an email message from Arnold Greenwood in Britain on Apr 21, 2000.  He wrote, “Congratulations on your ingenuity in composing the acrostic, although the clues were not entirely of the standard I have become used to from solving The Times puzzle”, and he discussed the puzzle’s “double acrosticity”, a neologism he begged leave to use in light of my quote from Finnegans Wake, but then he went on to ask where I got that new version of the quote, or revision of the quote, or misquote.  “My Oxford Dictionary of Quotations gives ‘Beneath the rule of men entirely great’, not ‘Under the rule of men entirely just’.  Have I missed something?”  I wrote back commending him on his neologism, and to say he was right about the correct phrasing of the Bulwer-Lytton quote from his play Richelieu; Or the Conspiracy, Act II, scene II, but that I didn’t know where I got the misquote.  It should be ‘beneath’ and ‘great’, not ‘under’ and ‘just’.  I also said that I would do some backtracking to try to find the exact textual source, the place where I got that variant of the line, explaining that I might have got it from a corrupted or faulty mention in another book of quotations.
        That’s when I ran across the 1997 email message by Steve Lehman in my private archive of the Zoss List.  I emailed Steve and asked him about his version of the quote.  I complemented him on it, saying that I liked his version better because it was more meaningful than the original.  What exactly is a ruler who is “entirely great”?  It sounds like Valley-Girl talk, totally.  So I asked him where he got this much better variation of the old saw.  He wrote back that he could not remember where he heard or read the misquote, and that it was “entirely possible that I just remembered the spirit of the quote, not the letter, but I do think someone else did the misquoting originally”.  And then he mused, “Is it possible that Bulwer-Lytton is actually quoting Cardinal Richelieu?”.  You mean, “La plume est plus puissante que l’épée”?
        I seem to have found the quote independently around Mar 16, 1999, and when I did a search of the now-defunct Zoss Archives on eScribe, I found Steve’s post on May 18, 1999.  All I have to show for it is a piece of paper with the misquote and the date Mar 16 written on it, but I neglected to write down where I found it, so I don’t know where I heard or read it, either.  Like Steve, I don’t think I did the misquoting originally, either, but I do think it is a much better version of the opening phrase to that sentence.
        And sorry for the further literary nitpicking, but I’m Canadian.
 

George Kovalenko.



.

[
This post is an explanatory footnote to my Acrostic puzzle.  But I didn’t include any links to the Zoss messages I quoted in this post because I couldn’t, since the Zoss Archive on eScribe is dead.]

April 24, 2014

MacKinnon and ‘nirvana’



        My involvement with MacKinnon’s stylograph started in 1993 when I discovered the then mostly overlooked and unread patents for fountain pens.  It was a revelation of eureka proportions, especially for someone living “due north” of the United States, which was at the time the center of the pen-collecting world, and finding that almost no one “due south” knew the true story of MacKinnon’s stylograph.  So when Bart Grossman wrote on the Zoss List on Feb 19, 1998 that he believed that stylographic pens “were invented by Cross” for the purpose of manifold writing with carbon paper, that really got my goad.  So I posted that “A. T. Cross did not invent the stylograph!  Duncan MacKinnon did.  Take a look at the materials in the information package on Duncan MacKinnon that I submitted to the PCA, and which was published in their newsletter The Pennant, Vol. IX, No. 1/2, Spr-Sum 1995, pp.6-8”.  See my two long posts concerning “MacKinnon v. Cross?” and “MacKinnon v. Cross!”.  Bart replied that he had just sent a post to Zoss “with a quote from Crum-Ewing on this”.  “What’s the contrary evidence?  Can anyone shed additional light?  I would guess it comes down finally to who holds the patent”.  Here is the quote from the Crum-Ewing book, The Fountain Pen: A Collector’s Companion, pp.86-87.
During the 1870s, A. T. Cross had [other] major projects in hand.  However, the stylographic pen is often regarded as A. T.’s greatest achievement.  It revolutionized fountain pens and the art of correspondence as a whole.  It was the first successful writing instrument that could produce an ink-written original with multiple carbon copies.  It delivered wet ink to paper through a strong tubular needle and spindle that served as a writing point in place of the traditional nib.  A writer could therefore bear down hard enough to write through carbons.  Prior to this invention carbon copies could only be made with a pencil because the traditional nib was too short and flexible to bear the necessary pressure without breaking.  The stylographic pen was so important an invention that the U. S. Post Office almost immediately made its use mandatory [by its employees].
        So I wrote, “What can I say?  The Crum-Ewing book is wrong.  Duncan MacKinnon patented his stylographic pen in Canada and the UK in 1875, and in the US in 1876, well before A. T. Cross patented his stylograph in 1877.  Cross in effect copied the basic mechanism and appearance of MacKinnon’s stylograph, and then added one thing to the internal mechanism, a spring, and repatented it.  At about the same time, Livermore, Edward Todd, Ullrich, and others came out with their own stylographs.  It was the first type of fountain pen to be both dependable and successful with the public, preceding Waterman’s famous fountain pen patents of 1884 by almost ten years.
        “Here’s the relevant patent information regarding MacKinnon’s and Cross’s stylographs and Waterman’s fountain pens.
Duncan MacKinnon’s patents for stylographs, Canadian patent 4,809, June 5, 1875, UK patent 2,497, July 12, 1875, and US patent 174,965, Mar 21, 1876. 
A. T. Cross’s patents for stylographs, US patents 189,304, April 10, 1877, and 190,130, May 1, 1877. 
L. E. Waterman’s patents for fountain pens not until 1884!, US patents 293,545, Feb 12, 1884, and 307,735, Nov 4, 1884.
There are two other patents for early precursors to the stylograph previous to MacKinnon’s patents dating from 1849 and 1857, but these came to nothing and didn’t have much influence on the later conception and design of the MacKinnon stylograph.
        “MacKinnon’s pen had a gravity-actuated needle, but Cross patented a pen based on MacKinnon’s invention by substituting a “spring” for the gravity idea, and then challenged MacKinnon for patent infringement when MacKinnon incorporated the “spring” into his own pen.  Despite the MacKinnon pen’s early predominance, this litigation eventually put the MacKinnon pen company out of business a few years later, but one of the owners, Francis Cashel Brown, created another company, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., which continued making stylographs into the 1920s.  Cross also challenged Livermore, but this time he lost.  With the ensuing proliferation of stylograph manufacture, Cross’s early success in the field was lost in the flood.  However, even Barbara Lambert’s book on the Cross pen company grudgingly acknowledged that MacKinnon was first.”
        Then Bart replied, “Thanks, I appreciate it and stand corrected, but who will correct Crum-Ewing?  Anyway it’s nice that there are people on this list with such dedication to the truth.  The confusion about all this is obvious when you consider that the most famous of the drafting or technical fountain pens is the Koh-i-noor “Rapidograph”.  As a long-term user of Radiographs I am now very curious to see what a real stylograph is like.”
        And Rick Conner wrote, “Thanks for the comprehensive info, George.  I checked in the F&S blue book, which shows pics of both Cross and MacKinnon stylographs, and gives a brief version of the history you provided under the section on A. T. Cross.  Lambrou’s smaller book (FPs Vintage & Modern) mentions MacKinnon only briefly (as offering a pen with “a circle of iridium on the nib”[??]), and Cross just as briefly (offering the “Perfected Stylographic Pen” in 1892), no mention of the Cross-MacKinnon battle, or of the earlier history of stylographs.  The 1875 date puts the commercial sale of the stylograph quite a few years before that of the Waterman Ideal”.
        And then Nathan Tardif responded with the funniest and most gratifying message of all.  “YES!  That Canadian fellow is RIGHT!  Great post, George!  Thank God there is somebody out there who has their facts right!  So many believe that Cross and Waterman (and some crazy people even think Mont Blanc) were the “first” in Pendom.  They are all wrong.  I have been collecting early stylos since I can remember, and to read George’s post was pure nirvana!”
*  I truly laugh out loud every time I read that line.  Every time.  He finished his post with screaming all-capital-letters, “THE DUNCAN MACKINNON PEN WAS THE FIRST VIABLE FOUNTAIN PEN!!!!!!”
        Now, with that one word, we are free from the endless cycle of birth-and-death of theories and beliefs and their accompanying suffering.  It’s as if historical research were an idealized state or place that was free of the pain of and the worries about that which was indistinct or unknown, blown about by the wind.  Now, that’s really beginning to sound a little bit like Constable Benton Fraser, Sergeant Bruce, and Dudley Do-Right all rolled up into one great big spliff!

George Kovalenko.



.

* nirvana (nir-VAH-nuh), N.
1. Freedom from the endless cycle of birth and death and related suffering. 
2. An idealized state or place free of pain, worries, etc.
[Loanword from Sanskrit, nirvana (blowing out, extinguishing, extinction), from nis- (out) + vati (it blows).  Ultimately from Indo-European root we- (to blow) that is also the source of wind, weather, ventilate, window and wing.]

April 21, 2014

F. C. Brown in New York


[Here are all the Francis C. Brown entries from the volumes of the Trow’s New York business directories and other N. Y. business directories on Ancestry.com, and some other sources.]


Apr 29, 1851, born in Haysville, Ontario, Canada.

Feb 10, 1877, arrived in the United States, and contributed the funds to help launch 

D. MacKinnon & Co.

1878, p.165, Frank [sic] C., pens, 21 Park Row, h 349 W. 14th, no MacKinnon or Fountain Ink Co.
1879, p.174, still Frank C., pens, p.946, and Duncan MacKinnon, and D. MacKinnon & Co., all at 21 Park Row.
1880, p.177, Francis C., pens, and p.991, D. MacKinnon & Co., 200 Broadway Ave., and Duncan MacKinnon, h Canada.
[1881, no volume in Ancestry.]
Nov 10, 1881, applied to become a naturalized American citizen.
1882, p.191, Francis C., sec., p. 540, Fountain Ink Co., and p.1060, MacKinnon Pen Co., all at 192 Broadway Ave.

 
Illustrated ads for the MacKinnon stylograph appear on almost every second or third page of the 1882 volume.

1883, p.193, Francis C., sec., h St Denis, p.543, Fountain Ink Co., and p.1073, MacKinnon Pen Co., all at 75 John St.
Apr 23, 1883, married Marie E. Laurie.
1884, p.205, Francis C., treas., and p.571, Fountain Ink Co. at 62 Cliff St., no more MacKinnon Pen Co.
[1885, no volume in Ancestry.]
1886, p.223, Francis C., pres., h New Brighton, S. I., and p.623, Fountain Ink Co. at 62 Cliff St., no listing for Caw’s.
[1887, no volume in Ancestry.]
1888, no listings, but instead there is a predatory ad on p.642 for “A. S. Barnes & Co. inks, pens” where the Fountain Ink Co. listing should be.  Perhaps he was preoccupied with moving, or with the ligation by Wirt.
1889, no listing for Brown, but a Caw’s Ink And Pen Co. ad appears on p.316, 157 Broadway Ave.
[1890, no volume in Ancestry.]
1891, p.166, Francis C., pens, and p.219, Caw’s Ink And Pen Co., 104 Broadway Ave.
Feb 2, 1892, became a naturalized American citizen.
1892, p.172, Francis C., pens, h New Brighton, S. I., ad on p.226, Caw’s Ink And Pen Co., 104 Broadway Ave.

 

 The first Caw’s Raven trademark and logo, 1892, p.226.

[1893, no volume in Ancestry.]
1894, p.169, Francis C., mgr., h New Brighton, S. I., p.222,
ad, Caw’s Pen And Ink Co., 42 Dey St.
[1895, no volume in Ancestry.]
[1896, no volume in Ancestry.]
1897, p.177, Francis C., mgr., h New Brighton, S. I., ad on p.233, Caw’s Pen And Ink Co., 168 Broadway Ave. & 42 Dey St.
1898, p.162, Francis Cashel, mgr., 168 Broadway Ave. & 42 Dey St. , h New Brighton, S. I., but no listing for Caw’s.
1899, p.162, Francis C., mgr., 168 Broadway Ave. & 42 Dey St. , h New Brighton, S. I., but no listing for Caw’s.
[1900, no volume in Ancestry.]
[1901, no volume in Ancestry.]
1902, pp.658, & 980, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., office & salesroom 227 Broadway Ave., factory 53 Vesey St.
1903, pp.692, & 1033-34, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., office & salesroom 227 Broadway Ave., factory 53 Vesey St.
[1904, no volume in Ancestry.]
[1905, no volume in Ancestry.]
1906, pp.541, 812, & 813, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., 46 Vesey St., with a banner ad as well as a name listing.


 The new Caw’s Raven-in-a-capital-letter-C logo, 1906, p.812.

[1907, no volume in Ancestry.]
[1908, no volume in Ancestry.]
[1909, no volume in Ancestry.]
1910, p.181, Francis C., mgr., h New Brighton, BR, p.234, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., 46 Vesey St.
1911, p.185, Francis C., mgr., h New Brighton, BR, p.237, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., 46 Vesey St.
1912, p.194, Francis C., mgr., h New Brighton, BR, p.249, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., 76 Duane St.
1913, p.196, Francis C., mgr., h New Brighton, BR, p.251, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., 76 Duane St., Tel WOR 3366.
1914, p.159, Francis C., mgr., p.161, Marie, ink, 76 Duane St., h New Brighton, BR, but no listing for Caw’s.
1915, p.393, Francis C., br. mgr., h New Brighton, BR, p.396, Marie, p.452, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., 77 Duane St.
1916, p.329, Francis C., mgr., h S. I., p.331, Marie, p.384, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., 76 Duane, Tel WOR 3366.
1917, p.433, Francis C., mgr., h New Brighton, S. I., p.435, Marie, p.496, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., 76 Duane St.

1917, Francis Cashel Browns 56-page book, Walk on Your Head: How I Found the Pathway to Perfect Health at Sixty-five, was published this year.  [It should actually be titled “Stand on Your Head, or Walk on Your Hands”.  Also see his 1917 photo here.]
1918, p.407, Francis C., mgr., h New Brighton, S. I., p.409, Marie, p.471, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., 76 Duane St.



Two Waterman’s predatory ads, 1912, p.194, and 1918, p.471, the ads were placed on the same pages as the listings for Caw’s, 
so if someone were to try to look up Caw’s, they would find the larger Waterman’s ad in close proximity.

[1919, no volume in Ancestry.]
1920, no listings for Francis C. and Marie, p.444, Caw’s Pen & Ink Co. (Francis C. Brown) 78 Reade St.
[1921, no volume in Ancestry.]
1922, Francis Cashel Brown, Insurance, also Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., both at 30 Church St.
Feb 18, 1923, Marie Brown, his wife, died.
[1923, no volume in Ancestry.]
[1924, no volume in Ancestry.]
1925, Francis C. Brown and Caw’s Pen & Ink Co., both at 30 Church St.
[1926, no more listings for the pen company in this volume, and in the volumes hereafter.  He became an insurance underwriter in his last years.]
Feb 1, 1939, after a long career in the pen business as the head of “the old, long-established firm Caw’s Pen & Ink Co.”, one that spanned the years 1877-1925, Francis C. Brown died.

George Kovalenko.



.