Server Wm. A. Rogers New York

Catalog number: 6

Little Creamer The Middletown Plate Co.

Catalog number 733.

I like this little fellow. The curvy shape appeals to me. It would have been a part of an individual serving set. It was made by the Middletown Plate Co. and has their earlier mark. I think Middletown is an under collected name in silverplate. Meriden Britannia Co. is supposed to be such fine work, but Middletown is just as old and I think quite nice.  Lets look at some fun facts:

Middletown Plate Co. 
(Do not confuse with the Middletown Silver Plate Co.)

Place:

     Middletown Connecticut 

Year:
     1864-1899-merger with ISC-

Founders:
     Edward Payne
     Henry Bullard

Made:
     holloware
     flatware

Mergers:
     1866 incorporated
     1899 Joined International Silver Co.

Notes:
     Sold Wares to the Wm. Rogers co. that plated and sold the material with their own mark.
     This means identical pieces can be found with different stamps

Forbes Silver Co. Spooner and Waste

Catalog number 572

Rogers and Brothers Cup

Catalog number: 132

Forbes Silver Plate Co. Creamer, Sugar, Spooner

Catalog number: 216

Cake Basket Columbia Silver Co.

Catalog number 037.

I know its beat up and bruised. It has had a hard life and I took it in. Now it sits by the back door and holds banana peels until I go out and put them in the roses. The plate is damaged, the inside is dented that the bail has lost its plate. But I like it. Its from the "Columbia Silver Co." although the mark would appear to read "Oclumbia Silver Co."  Colombia who at best was a low grade plater from what I have seen of their work, but as you know I am a big fan of the smaller less celebrated makers. This one is however, a doozy.

There is really not much to be said about this maker no one seems to know much of anything.

Rainwater list two "Columbias" First we can eliminate one based on year and manufacturing:

Columbia Silver Co.
     Brooklyn, New York
     Active around the middle fifties until the late 1970's
     Plus they made sterling
So they are out for now.

Columbia Manufacturing Co.
     Gowanda, New York
     Made plated Wares
     Around 1892

    A closer time period on the year but not the same name.
    No mark listed.


A third possibility I have seen is that "Columbia Superior" was used by the Middletown Plate Company as a low grade mark. This mark is not even close to that.

There is also the problem that one might mistake the words columbia for columbian and attribute the mark to the Queen City Silver Plate Co. However I believe that they are in fact two different marks the giant C not withstanding. Besides Columbian Silver Co. seems to actually have been marked on pieces of higher grades than these. an easy mistake to be sure.

So where does that leave us? Not very far. I can assure you. There is a small discussion about it on the Silver Salon Forums. They did not get very far either. It is likely that unless we get a time machine that we will never know. However, I like a problem and will endeavor to provide you the dear reader with as much information as I can dig up on the issue as we progress. Like I mentioned before there were thousands of tiny platers out there that produced small amounts of product and we may never know very much about them. However we can appreciate the craftsmanship and styling of the products they left behind.

Good News! A little research has turned up some interesting facts.

First, the Columbia Silver Co. of Brooklyn (the sterling manufacturer) the first reference to them I could find was in 1947.  This was in Chilton's jewelers' circular/keystone 1970 jewelers' directory issue: Volume 144, Issues 7-10 pages 442, 443, and 445.  Also more exactly they were known as Columbia Silver Co. Inc.

They  are also listed in the 1949 New York state directory of manufacturing and mining firms in New York state, under the same name.

Also they are listed in Mastai's classified directory of American art & antique dealers, Volume 3 as an antiques dealer in 1947. 

This does not get us very far with out problem, however it does shed some light on that particular company.

Second, the Jewelers' Circular, Volume 135 from 1917 list the Columbia Silver Co. (I believe the one we are looking for) as an exhibitor. 

Two Dollar Plate, French Sterling

I picked this up for two dollars yesterday at a junk store on a lark. I did not see any of the usual marks, just ones I could not really see clearly. It was heavy, tarnished (it sat in the sink overnight and was much worse)  but it did not have any sorts of the usual silver plate marks. I liked the detail of the flowers on it (the picture does not do it justice) but was wary because it is a small piece and seems to be missing something.  I don't know what the center is for it is the size of a teacup. I think that is what I may do with it. 

The marks were confusing. I looked in Rainwater's book first this did not help. There are two marks I had a hard time seeing.  I knew it had a Minerva head, so I did some internet searching. It also had another head in a square cartouche. At first I thought it might be Dutch. This did not pan out. Then I thought it might be Russian. It was close (the mark was so hard to see) but this did not turn out. Then I figured out that it was French. I still have a lot I am trying to learn about international hallmarks, and I rely heavily on this wonderful site. 925-1000 is one of my go to places on the internet for information. 

As an online encyclopedia of silver they are second to none. I could not do my work without them. So not only did they help me confirm the assay mark as being french, they had information on the maker. 

Turns out it is Emile Delaire who worked from 1882 to 1920. 

I could not have asked for a better deal, a better research site, or a better dish. Thats pretty good if I do say so myself. 

E. G. Webster & Son Coffee Pot

This little fellow got purchased a couple of weeks ago. I picked it up from a dealer friend of mine at a low cost who just hours before had picked it up from another dealer friend of mine for about nine dollars less. Had I not been so lazy that morning it could have been mine at a lower price but not to despair, early bird and all that. I really like the wooden handle, and the lid is in good shape, the silver inside is intact, the shape just does not do it for me. 

The weather was unseasonably warm today so you get an outside picture. This pot is part of the famous E.G. Webster reproduction lines and has a very classical english styling about it. I covered a brief history of E.G. Webster & Son in this post so there is no need to reproduce it here. I really like this maker and have seen many of their works. It is easy to identify through the use of their trademark spider web with a W. Though this is only one of their many marks, I think it is one of their best and just the detail of it is a joy to behold. 

Without reference books at hand to identify this mark I imagine that searching it out is a pain on the internet. I think I would go with the terms W, Star, Web, Silver but that could turn up any amount of things. Pictorial marks are some of the hardest to identify. Though, like with Webster, once you know what it is it becomes immediately recognizable to the collector. 

So what will become of this little fellow? Well I am stocked up on pots like this and it is not in the garish Victorian style I like so much so he is destined to be a Christmas present. The person i have in mind will give him a very good home.  There is a little damage to his foot where he was likely set on a ht stove or burner, but i don't think that this will matter too much. Sometimes imperfect silver is some of the most interesting. 

Last Water Pitcher. Reed and Barton

This is the last of my three water pitchers.  Oh I have many many other pitchers but those are not just water pitchers. Strangely it was the first water pitcher I bought.  I purchased it at an estate sale about four years ago. The maker is Reed and Barton and it was made in 1943. I know because unlike so many other makers Reed and Barton is kind enough on later works form 1928 on to put a date symbol (much like British sterling has). This piece has a fasces and thus was easy to look up.  Another  unique thin about his pitcher is its weight. Even though it has a ceramic insert the bottom is weighted quite heavily. This was to keep it from sliding on a table. Why? you inquire. Because this pitcher was made for the U.S. Navy. It is marked USN on the bottom. This means it was made during Word War II. 

I could go into a long discussion here about the history of Reed and Barton, their date marks and other marks but this information has been covered by so many people. Probably because they are still producing silver and silverplate.  However if you are interested you should check out this site. Giorgio B. has done a wonderful job of covering Reed and Barton as well as many many other makers and topics. I rely on it constantly. I can't imagine what his collection is like but this database of information is second to none. I truly admire his work. 

Another Cup

I picked up this little gem because I liked the handle and it was very inexpensive. It could do with a polish but I am afraid hat doing so will reveal that most of the plate is gone. I put it next to the old Frankoma coffee mug to give it some colour and scale. Plus its morning here and therefore is coffee time. 

The marks on the cup were hard to read, but it is from the Simpson, Hall, Miller & Co. from Wallingford Connecticut.  Its catalog number is 404. Across the front it has so large elephant ear type plant. My mother could identify the plant right off but not knowing too much about tropical plants thats the description I will stick with. 

I am posting a lot right now both because I have a little time and I have a backlog in the collection to catch up with. 

To learn more about S.H. & Miller you should read this post. 

St. Louis Silver Syrup Pitcher

I finally purchased a syrup pitcher. This little beauty, I thought, was from the St. Louis Silver Co. in St. Louis Missouri. It has a nice floral design and an accompanying plate.

This piece is marked

ST. L. C.& S.W. Co. in a circle with St. Louis in the middle. At first I thought it was the St. Louis Silver Company. Turns out it was not. 

St. Louis Silver Co. 
St. Louis Silver Plate Company
St. Louis Missouri


Founder: 
Unknown


Founded:
First appeared in 1893


Was listed as the St. Louis Silver Plate Company in 1905
So they changed names somewhere in there.

Seems to have closed sometime around 1912-1913

Produced:
     Silverware
     Holloware
     Steins

They are famous for their wood and silver steins.
The patent for the steins is from 1904 by Clarence M. Perkins

Marks:

     Seen as L.B. Silverware Co. in a circle.

     Also made a line called SALOSICO WARE

     Also used a clover leaf.


The marks did not "add up" in my mind.
The Initials of the mark even the known mark did not make any sense.  "L.B." , "St. L. C."
What does that C stand for? What does the B stand for?

S.W. could be silverware

There was a company I have very little information on it, called the  St. Louis Clock and Silverware Company


There is even less information about this company.

This is what I have dug up:

St. Louis Clock and Silverware Company
St. Louis Missouri


Founder:
     Otto Pfeffer

Founded:
     1890

Ended:
    To at least 1904

Products:
     Wholesale dealer in clocks
     cut glass
     silverware
     novelties

Mark:
     ST. L. C.& S.W. Co.

Other Notes:
    Participated in the St. Louis "Louisiana Purchase Exhibition" also known as the "St. Louis Worlds Fair" in 1904- They are listed in the catalog.


More Research dug up an old catalog from the St. Louis Clock and Silverware Company. This absolutely confirms that the pitcher is theirs. Right on the cover of their 1904 "Twelfth Annual Catalog" across the front is  "ST. L. C.& S.W. Co." "Wholesale Only" So now I can confirm that they produced this piece or at least sold it. So far as I know no other record of their silver production exist online so this is the first. That makes me excited. And if its not? Hell, I am still excited.

Did I mention I love toast racks?

I don't like toast. Not in the least. But I do love toast racks. I
finally found one. I am pretty sure it is British but have not
confirmed the situation.

Wilcox Silver Plate Co. Water Pitcher

This is my other water pitcher. It is from the Wilcox Silver Plate Co.
This design was patented October 29, 1878. It has an ice shield and a
ceramic insert to help keep the water cold. It's catalog number is
5174. The banding is a repousse floral affair.

That its the cat Paycheck helping in the background.

Cake Basket Rogers Smith & Co.

This Cake basket is a lovely piece from the Rogers, Smith and Company of Meriden Connecticut.It also has the piece number of 1803. I got it at auction for a song. I love the butterflies that are inside the bowl and the tall pedestal. Around the bowl it has a floral relief except for one really strange bird head.

The Rogers,Smith & Co.
Meriden Connecticut

Founded:
January 1, 1857

Manufactured:
Holloware
Flatware

Founders
William Rogers Sr.
George W. Smith

Mergers:
August 12 1862 with Rogers Bros. Mfg. Co.

August 12, 1862 their flatware division was sold to the Meriden Britannia Co.
The Rogers left to work with them.

Edward Mitchell of the Rogers, Smith and Co. bought the hollowware division.


Rogers, Smith & Co.
New Haven Connecticut

Founded:
November 6, 1862

Manufactured:
Holloware

Founder:
Edward Mitchell

Mergers:
January 13, 1863 bought by Meriden Britannia Co.
Continued in New haven using Rogers, Smith & Co. marks
June 1865 plating shop moved to Meriden Connecticut - Marks will read Meriden
Move completed by January 1, 1866
All facilities incorporated into Meriden Britannia Company by 1877

By 1898 when the International Silver Company was formed it was a trademark owned by the Meriden Britannia Company but had ceases to produce as a division.

Water Pitcher- Pelton Bros. Silver Plate Co.

I picked up this water pitcher last weekend. An older gentleman I know that sells at the local flea market had pulled it out for me from a box of junk. He even had had his grandson polish it with a cloth to take off most of the tarnish. It was exquisite. At first I thought it was missing its ceramic insert, however, it has an ice shield that swings inward and this tells me that it never had one. The finial on top is easy enough to see in the picture, but around the edge are shields and papyrus with little birds inside the shields. The same design is repeated around the top. The spout has flowers on it and the motif is repeated in the handle.

The mark is terribly hard to read. However after enough staring I figured out it was "made" by the Pelton Bros. Silver Plate Co.

Pelton Bros. Silver Plate Co. was located in St. Louis Missouri and seems to have existed from 1872 to 1900. It was managed for a time by Philip S.Pelton.

Their flatware was marked:
Triple Plate 12
Sectional Plate XII
Standard Plate 4

Their hollowware was marked as a PB in a shield and as a circular cartouche.

I question that this being made by them. There is another set of marks on the bottom of the pitcher that has been over-struck and then plated. A barely visible CT can be seen and I am assuming that the underlying britannia metal was bought from one of the Connecticut manufacturers and then plated by the Pelton Bros. This was a pretty common practice in the Victorian era. In fact this practice was one of the contributing reasons that the International Silver Company formed because some firms found that by uniting they could save money on this trend in the industry. It also explains identical pieces having different manufacturing marks.

Clearing up the Wilcox Name

Clearing up the Wilcox Name

Like Rogers (though thankfully fewer) there are several silver and silverplate companies with Wilcox in the name.  We are going to take on a few here.

Wilcox Britannia Co.

Meriden, Connecticut

Founded 1865

Founders:

            Jebediah Wilcox

            Horace Wilcox

            Aaron Collins

            Charlie Parker

            Hezekeah Miller

Made:

            Hollowware

Changed name to Wilcox Silver Plate Co. in 1867

Wilcox & Evertsen

New York, New York

Named in 1892

Formed out of Rowan and Wilcox that started in 1889.

The two founders:

Robert M. Wilcox

Henry H. Evertsen

Made:

            Sterling silver hollowware

            Sterling flatware

            Generally considered to be well designed

Purchased by:

In 1896 they were bought out by the Meriden Britannia Company.

Factories were moved to Meriden Connecticut

1898 – International Silver Company formed (A chief founder being the Meriden Britannia Company)

            Division tools moved to Wallingford Connecticut

            Worked inside the Simpson Nickel Silver Plant

In 1919 their lines became consolidated into the old Simpson, Hall & Miller building.

Marks:

            Hollowware

            Indian head, with feather on top

Flatware

            Wilcox & Evertsen

           

H. C. Wilcox and Co.

Meriden, Connecticut

Founded 1848

Founders:

            Horace C. Wilcox

            Dennis C. Wilcox

Served as an early marketing and distribution service in Meriden Connecticut

Wilcox-Roth Co.

Newark, New Jersey

First reference 1909

Made Sterling Silver

No other information

Mark:

            W Lion R inside a C with an o at the “mouth” of the c

Wilcox Silver Plate Co.

Meriden, Connecticut

Founded 1865/1867

Founders:

            Jebediah Wilcox

            Horace Wilcox

            Aaron Collins

            Charlie Parker

            Hezekeah Miller

Made:

            Hollowware

Purchased:

            1869 purchased the Parker & Casper co.

            1898 helped to found the International Silver Co.

            Wilcox mark used after the foundation as a line in the ISC.

            1941 Factory closed because of WWII

1961 became Webster-Wilcox

1981 Webster-Wilcox sold to Oneida Silversmiths

Marks:

            Too many to list them all:

            Wilcox S.P. Co.

            Wilcox Silver Plate Co.

            Superior Silver Co.

            Made and Guaranteed by Wilcox Silver Co.

            W S P Co.

            Pewter by Wilcox

            Superior S.P.Co.

Wilcox and Wagoner

New York, New York

1904-1905

Made:

            Sterling Hollowware and Glassware

Purchased:

            Bought by the Watson Co. in 1905

Marks:

            Sword in wreath

            WW

           

           

New Little Dish from The Acme Silver Plate Co.

Needs a polish. New in the sense that I picked it up a couple of
months ago. It has reposse fruit inside the bowl and the head of
Hermes on the side. The back has dragons and horns. This is just the
sort of strange Victorian decoration that I love. I was very excited
when I found it. It was made by The Acme Silverplate Company
"quadruple plate".
The Acme Silver Plate Co. made plated silver holloware and silverware
around 1885 in Boston Massachusetts. They were a short lived company
and did not survive more than ten years.

New Tongs from W. & S. Blackinton Co

Made by W.& S. Blackinton "Fine Silver Plate"

W. & S. Blackinton Co. was in Meriden Connecticut and started as a gold jewelry manufacturer in 1865 by a couple of brothers. In 1938 they were bought out by the Ellmore Silver Co. After the buyout silver plating was commenced. This was slowed during World War II and started back up in 1945.

Poor Planning

Well, I have not posted in a while. That is because of poor planning on my part. I apologize. I think I sucked the fun out of this blog by making it too academic. I am going to try to focus on some fun things and post more often.

The Week in Review

    This week I have had off from work. Because of that, it appears that I have been off from writing. This past weekend was not a great silver hunting weekend anyway. We have been having a lot of storms so there are fewer sales to attend. Saturday I went to Purcell Oklahoma. This small downtown has about 6 antique shops, some of them quite pleasant some of them dubious. The problem is that Purcell is so close to where I live that I have been there dozens of times and the stock is not fresh or exciting to me. Still, compared to Guthrie which is supposed to be the best antiquing in Oklahoma Purcell is awesome.
    
   Monday I had to go to Oklahoma City for some business and went to a couple of shops that I had not visited before. One had never been open when I was in the city and it had a very nice selection of silver. What was strange was that in the two shops that I visited I saw three plateaus. They were not the grand plateaus of a manor house but small affairs that were perhaps a foot in diameter. They all ran about $ 150, two were in fair condition and one in good condition.  I did not pick them up but it struck me how sometimes I notice things in groups. I imagine it has something to do with selective attention. I should reread Kurt Koffka's principals on Gestalt theory.

     I did however find a couple of interesting things. One is a sterling spoon set marked Kitty. The second is a brides basket I picked up. I hope to give both the recent cake/brides/fruit baskets a good write up. The one I found on Monday was on a bottom shelf, covered in stuff in a booth that was having a 40% off sale. So I made out like a fat rat on this one.  It has some plate loss but it was still worth the pittance I paid.

     The only other thing of note this week was that a few select pieces of the collection went to be displayed for a drawing class at a local art center. They were borrowed for the purpose of creating still life scenes.

New James W Tufts Cake Basket

Sterling Marked Macie

 

My skills at photography are pretty poor and I lack the ability and camera at this moment to show great detail. This is one of the reasons why there are not better pictures of the gobs of flatware that I bring in and process. I just cannot get close enough to really show the extraordinary detail of some of them. This piece is one of those times where the camera has utterly failed to capture its beauty. 

I was talking to one of my favourite dealers at the local flea market, she usually has silver on hand and knows a bit about it. I had poked around on her table and there was nothing of real interest and on a whim I asked her if she had anything else. She reached in a box and pulled out this little thing. Its about the size of the palm of my hand, about half a dollars length. It was clear that it was sterling (from the mark on the back) and was stamped MACIE. The best part was that you could tell that it had been hand hammered. the hammer strikes are all over the piece but not purposely.  This is a piece you can tell that has been made by someone still learning the craft but getting better and better at it.

Every other little dip on the rim has a hand chased figure in remarkable detail. There are some worms with leaves, a small bird like a sparrow, a flower, a butterfly, some grapes, and a larger bird like a duck. Around the rim on the underside there is geometric chasing. The style looked Mexican thought there are no marks to that effect. The best I could track down was a really shaky report of a Macie silversmith in Mexico but with some pieces it may take years to know or you may never. Unfortunately this picture can not really do this piece justice. I got it for a song, and it is small but it already has a nice place in the display cabinet. Unlike a lot of my silver that is an industrial product and is beautiful for being a beautiful industrial product. This is a beautiful piece of silver made by someone moving towards mastery of an ancient craft.

Sterling Compote For the Melt

 

In Shawnee Oklahoma this weekend I also picked up this weighted sterling compote.  It is marked P.S.C.O. 151 Sterling weighted. As you can see in the picture the middle has some sort of blunt force trauma that occurred to it. This makes it useless as an object of beauty unless crumpled metal is your thing. The great part? It was a dollar. It will go into my box of trashed sterling that is waiting for the melt. My other thought was the I could cut a sheet from it and try my own hand at hammering a small object from it. A thimble perhaps? Or a smaller bowl? At any rate, for a dollar you can't beat that with a stick.

Leaf Dish from Wilcox Silver Plate

 

I also picked up this leaf dish this weekend. There is a seller at the local flea that bought out another seller and the organizer of the flea. He bought so much stuff and so much of it has been in storage for sometimes over twenty years that in order to sell it he pulls out boxes and anything in them gets sold for a dollar.

I am guessing that they go through the boxes very quickly before they get sent to the flea but I don't think that I can describe the condition of most of the stuff. Some of it has had rain on and animals living amongst it for twenty years. So you have to do some digging. Usually there is nothing. The last things I bought off of him were a creamer/sugar (late 1930's) both for a dollar after bargaining and a ten pound box of silverplate flatware for seven dollars.

The chap who works the booth is an employee of the chap that owns the goods and I am a good customer of the chap that owns the goods antique stores and know his daughter. In fact before I knew him I was the first customer in his new antique store the day it opened one town over. Plus as it turns out I also know his sister. But back to the dollar booth. 

I dug around a bit and out pops this (which was crustier at the time) so I paid a dollar for it. It appears that someone had been using it as an ash receiver. I am not in particular love with the piece but it is marked as Wilcox Silver Plate and I have a soft spot for that maker.  It is Wilcox after the formation of the International Silver Co. I know that because it is also marked International Silver Co.

It should polish up nicely and perhaps I will use it for something outside the kitchen. It is a weird shape for table service and I have plenty of pieces for that. Today I was reading about pin receivers and shirt button receivers so it may go towards that purpose. I had not done much reading on "silver novelties" or dressing table silver until recently and a couple of weeks ago I passed up a hair receiver that I am sort of kicking myself for not picking up when I had the chance. But there is always another time.

Star Pattern Juelep Strainers from 1890

 

Did I mention I was not done showing you all the wonderful things from this weekend? No? Well how remiss of me. These are two julep strainers I picked up in a pile that included a First Colony (1975) pie server, a Meadowbrook plate and some sort of stainless steel knife that I have now consigned to the garage. (sometimes in silver lots you get stainless I have a bag in the garage that I will eventually take to the thrift shop) 

These two beauties are what I really wanted. Though I do have a box of Meadowbrook (1936, Wm A Rogers A1 Plus) that is second only to my Queen Bess surplus. Simply because of the mass of it is the plate of any interest unless I could find a rich collector of Meadowbrook that wanted to take all of it off my hands. What I really wanted were the julep strainers. They are pretty rare as far as serving pieces go and there they were in perfect condition. The cap would only sell as a lot, he would not sell separately. This is unusual because I always try to bargain cheap by buying the lot and most sellers want to sell by the piece. This chap would not sell by the piece but I bargained with him until I got the whole lot for less than I was willing to buy the pieces for, so in a way it was win win for me as I paid less than what I had offered for the piece for the lot. 

Still, these are wonderful pieces and I was happy to slip them into my hunting bag and move on before the seller figured out that he had just underbid himself. This is the Star pattern made by 1847 Rogers Bros. They were only made in the Julep Strainer so if you have this pattern you have a julep strainer or something made by someone else. The date for the Star pattern is 1890. They are great little pieces and unfortunately for them I drink precious few juleps. I have julep cups and plenty of mint but it just does not seem to come up that often.  

El Unico Orange Knife

This advertisement from The Century magazine from 1894 shows another Victorian way of dealing with the orange.  The knife is steel and is silver plated. The handle is sold in ivory, pearl, celluloid, sterling and silverplate. It "has a fine saw edge" and can "cut orange and grapefruit smoothly without releasing any bitter oils from the skin".

Other than this advertisement I have never heard of El Unico of St. Augustine Florida. Rainwater nor any other of my references mention this maker. It is possible that they are a reseller. However, te blade is stamped with their mark. To be honest again if someone brought me this knife I would probably confuse it with a cheese knife which it closely resembles. 

Holmes & Edwards Silver Company Advertisement for the Waldorf Pattern

This is a advertisement for the Holmes & Edwards Silver Co. Waldorf pattern. It appears in The Century in 1894. It is an Easter advertisement urging surprise on the morning of  or surprising that "particular friend".  One of course wonders what that is a euphemism for. 

J.H. Johnston & Co. Advertisement 1894

This is an advertisement for the J.H. Johnston & Company for a variety of silver novelties.  They have their offices in Union Square New York and show a wide variety of silver goods. This advertisement appears in The Century magazine in 1894.  My favourite piece here is the "Cleopatra" pen rest in the shape of a snake and I am guessing an asp. The advertisement also features an ink eraser.

Spaulding & Company Sterling Silverware Advertisement

This is an advertisement in The Century magazine from 1894 from Spaulding & Company Inc. for their sterling flatware. They claim addresses in Paris and Chicago.

Simpson, Hall, Miller & Company Almond Bowl 1894

This is an advertisement for an almond bowl from Simpson, Hall, Miller & Co. This advertisement appears in The Century magazine in 1894. What is interesting here besides this unusual Victorian piece of silverplate is the advertisement mentions the unnecessary nature of luxury goods.

It claims that fine china and silver make life better by their aesthetic qualities "Life Brightening". It also instructs the reader in the use of the almond bowl where the almonds are placed in the middle nut bowl and then distributed into the cups on the edge for the individual. To be honest, if I came across this piece for sale I would have had no idea what it was originally used for.

Unusual Shaving Stand from Pairpoint Manufacturing Company 1896

This is another unusual piece of silver from the Pairpoint Manufacturing Company. This advertisement that appears in Public Opinion in 1896 shows a combination shaving set. There are trays for brush, soap, powder, matches, and a water bowl that is heated by either a candle or oil lamp. (It is hard to tell though I would guess lamp oil)  It claims to make boiling water in two minutes and end the problem of cold water shaving. We have to remember that during this period water fromt eh tap was still a very rare thing, and hot water even rarer.

Orange Holder Advertisement from Pairpoint Manufacturing Co. 1894

This is an advertisement for a rather rare piece of silver the orange holder. This advertisement appears in Munsey's Magazine in 1894 and was bought by the Pairpoint Manufacturing Corporation. These pieces would later be called orange bowls. They sought to help the stodgy Victorians figure out the "proper" way to eat the newly widely available oranges.

Pairpoint Mfg. Co. Advertisement 1896

This is an advertisement form the Pairpoint Manufacturing Co. that appears in Century magazine in 1896. It highlights a child's bowl and plate. It also mentions orange bowls, tea sets, tureens and bakers.

Daniel Low Salem Massachusetts.

This is an advertisement for Daniel Low silversmith in Salem Massachusetts. It appeared in The Century magazine in 1894 and features the Salem pattern.  I like the description of "florid European patterns"

From This Saturday in Shawnee Oklahoma Pairpoint Mfg. Co. Spooner

 

This little beauty was also found in Shawnee. Once again on a back shelf hidden from view. The owner of the shop Jackie, was a little upset because he had meant to purchase this piece but had forgotten about it. He collects Art Nouveau silver and been at the auction where this was originally sold. He had gotten distracted at the auction and missed the piece and then had forgotten about it in his own shop. 

To his credit he had just opened his shop three months ago and had been particularly busy getting it up and running. We talked a bit about the trade and I picked his brain for advise about running an antique shop. His shop was on the higher end of the scale. He kept referring to it as a gallery, rather than a shop.  In fact I thought to suggest better signage because we almost did not go in because we were unsure what it was. 

Still it was quite pleasant. Much better than the antique shop that has two things from the fifties and a bunch of feathered pens and crap from Two's company. These shops are the worst. They are like some sort of sick Hallmark store and because I go to a lot of shops in rural areas, they have a very strange idea about marketing to middle class white women. I mean these are hard to describe, it is as if the decorator section of Hobby Lobby has vomited into a small town. 

But I digress. The shop owner Jackie pointed out to me that this was a spooner and I agree.  Had he known that I was a writer for the leading silver blog I am sure he would have asked me what I thought but we can't be famous everywhere. In honesty this piece has spent some time as a "penner". When I gave it its inital wash, a good step before polishing, the water from the inside ran out blue. Seems there was a whole splotch of dried ink on the bottom of the inside. When I first checked it I knew there was some muck in there but did not realize what it was. So it spent last night filled with water on the counter soaking. 

The piece itself is in good condition. It was made by Pairpoint Manufacturing Company of New Bedford Massachusetts.  This company was founded in 1880 as the Pairpoint Mfg. Co. and named after Thomas J. Pairpoint a founder that left the Meriden Britannia Company. Mr. Pairpoint is noted for his ideas about silver as a form of art and for the introduction of intricate design into the manufacturing process. I think if we compare Victorian silver with earlier pieces we can see some of his influence. Renaissance silver is very figural and decorative. Colonial silver is very plain. Victorian silver begins by copying the intricacies of the Renaissance. Thomas Pairpoint was partially responsible for this. 

The Pairpoint Mfg. Co. became the Pairpoint Corporation in 1900 due to financial difficulties. Prior to this Pairpoint had acquired the Mt. Washington Glass Corporation in 1894. they continued as a dual company making glass and silver until the depression on 1929 forced them to shut down silver production. The Niagara Silver Co.  purchased the flatware lines in 1900. Some patterns for holloware were purchased by the Rockford Silver Plate Co.

I really like everything I have see from Pairpoint. While quite a few of my colleges feel that Meriden Britannia Co. is one of the top corporations for silver plate, and I agree that they created work, I think Pairpoint often exceeds them in terms of design. Now I am known in the industry for liking smaller makers and smaller pieces, but I think there are a number of collectors that would agree with me on this point. Pairpoint on the whole had beautiful designs. I would have to say that they are in my top five manufacturers.

Found in Shawnee Oklahoma Meriden Pitcher

 

Last weekend was sort of a bust for silver hunting. I can't really recall finding anything really good. This weekend was sooooo mush better. It comes and goes like that. I think the main thing is persistence.  I mean I could find things every weekend if I just went up to the shops in the city and bought something I liked. But finding pieces, quality pieces, that I like at my budget is a bit of hard work. I mean to say it is hard work I enjoy. 

This piece is a great example. It was on a shelf, in a store in Shawnee Oklahoma. Behind a bunch of other stuff, low in the dark, so easy to miss. I was looking at a Greek revival (no maker) baby cup that was priced for a dollar and low and behold at the back was this little gem. It is from the Meriden Britannia Company. I have seen this in a catalogue but my quick searches this morning did not turn up the right one. I think it will polish up nicely. The faces vary all around the base. I think if I get some time I may provide the panoramic view this is such a nice little piece.

Dragon Pitcher, Simpson Hall and Miller, Pride of the Collection

 

This silverplate pitcher is part of the pride of the collection. It has an inside spout shield, incised decorations and the figure of a dragon on top. The dragon is not quite the Welsh dragon but is close enough as far as Victorian silverplate goes for my taste. If it is not a dragon it might be described as a sphinx though it is defiantly not an Egyptian sphinx.  Its tail is a swirly scaled affair almost like a sea monster but there is no other sign of sea life on the pitcher so I think this can be dismissed. The scroll work on the side and the shape of the handle add a Persian influence, perhaps Assyrian. Look at the handle, the scroll work, shape and proportion recall the ancient world.  I have not yet found this piece in a catalogue but I hope to soon.  

It is from Simpson, Hall and Miller, also known as Simpson, Hall, Miller & Co.  from Wallingford Connecticut. They were founded in 1866.  By 1895 they were manufacturing sterling. They also had the contract to manufacture the Eagle Wm rogers Star Brand flatware. In 1898 they were a founding member of the International Silver Company. When they joined international, they focused mainly on sterling becoming the center of the International Silver Companies sterling production. This means their mark was used well beyond 1898 for sterling ware. Silver plate was left to to other companies, Derby, Wilcox, Meriden Britannia Company.

Above we see some of the marks used by Simpson, Hall, Miller and Co. This is not exhaustive of the marks that they used. The pitcher uses a mark of the name Simpson, Hall, Miller and Co. above a rectangle that reads quadruple plate with Wallingford Connecticut below. Another common mark are the initials seen above S H M &Co. and for sterling the S in a shield with a helmet.

Mustard or Jam Pot

I picked up this little mustard or jam pot a couple of weeks ago. No
makers mark but the glass and swag on the sides really called to me.
Plus it fills a gap in the serving ware. A nice piece is a nice piece
no matter who made it. I do not think that it is particularly old, but
unlike many modern pieces, this has a quality lid and good welds. Plus
I can jazz it up by using a really pretty and detailed spoon.

Star Rogers & Bros. New Century Pattern

This is another piece that I acquired this weekend. It is New Century
by star Rogers & Brothers. This pattern is from 1898. The flatware
from the turn of the century is awesome in its weight, plate and
craftsmanship. After World War One you can see and feel a real
difference in the way the objects are made. This does not make them
lesser objects, it simply makes them different. Styles of taste had
changed and I suspect cost of materials rose. This piece has classic
swirls and design. Though it does have more blank space than other
earlier patterns. I guess it is a harbinger of the new century that
was arriving.
The nice card is how I store flatware after it is identified. The
piece is placed in an airtight bag with a card with the pattern name,
year, maker, and sometimes who bought out that maker. The bag helps
prevent tarnish. The card helps to keep the flatware organized and
prevents having to look things up again and again. This card was made
by my partner. She has much better handwriting than mine.

Reed & Barton Cashmere 1889

Sometimes I get a piece of silver and put it to use. This happens most
often to serving-ware. Yesterday I was making a pizza for dinner and
grabbed a ladle to scoop and spread some tomato sauce. The ladle was
marked Reed & Barton but I did not recognize the pattern. Turns out it
is Cashmere from 1889. What a great way to spread pizza sauce.

Mysterious Spoons

I picked up these spoons this weekend as well. I liked the shields and
the mark was one I did not recognize. I figured they were turn of the
century and the maker would be in one of my reference books at home.
Turns out I was wrong. The backstamp is a diamond followed by a dash
then Diamond Edge dash T.P.

In silver I have had learn to live with mystery. Perhaps at some time I
will find some information on this backstamp. But for now I have two
pretty mystery spoons.

Victorian Silverplate Flatware: Roman Pattern

This weekend I stopped by a garage sale while looking for another
sale. I picked up a large bag of flatware at .50 cents a piece. I
got to hand pick the pieces out of a suitcase full of patterns and
walked away with a bag of Victorian silverware.

Below are two pieces in the Roman pattern. The fork is from this
weekend the butter knife from an earlier haul. This pattern is from 1865.
Pieces can be marked Rogers & Brothers, Anchor Rogers, Derby Silver Plate, 1847 Rogers
and Rogers Smith & Co.

Goblet of Flowers

This weekend I also went to El Reno to the hamburger day celebration.
It was awesome. On the way home I stopped in Bethany Oklahoma and
found this goblet for under five dollars. It is in bad shape but I
think it will polish up nicely. The makers mark is long gone. Turning
it over reveals a hole where it used to be. This might account for how
inexpensive it was. I may never know unless I stumble across it in an
old catalogue. Still, most of the time its the beauty of the piece not
its value because of a particular maker. This is a nice little cup.

Use of the Rogers Name in Marking Silver 1887

This Report from the Connecticut Reports Containing Cases Argued and Determined in The Supreme Court Of Errors in the State of Connecticut from 1887 covers the case of Simpson, Hall, Miller and Company and the Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co. in 1886. This case is specifically about the use of the Rogers name in marking silverware and other goods. The use of the Rogers name as we have mentioned before is varied and diverse. This issue is very complex but this write up about the case helps to clear some of it away. In the article they cover the history of the Rogers marks and competing companies. They also cover the history of the Rogers Brothers and their manufacturing concern.

The William Rogers Manufacturing Company vs. ,ja
Simpson, Hall, Miller And Company.

Hartford District, Oct. T., 1886. Pakk, C. J., Carpentek, Pardee,
Loomis and Granger, Js.

William Rogers, for twenty-five years before his death in 1873, had a val-
nable reputation in the market as a manufacturer of silver-plated
ware. A son of the same name acquired skill under him in the same
manufacture, and since 1864 had had a valuable independent reputa-
tion in the market as a manufacturer of the same goods. In 1878 the
second William Rogers made a contract witli the defendant corpora-
tion by which it was agreed that he should exercise his skill in super-
intending their manufacture of silver-plated ware, and direct as to its
quality and style, and allow his name to be stamped thereon and de-
fend its use; in consideration of which he was to receive a commission
upon sales. The plaintiff corporation had since 1872 been engaged in
the manufacture of silver-plated ware, and used sundry trade-marks, of
which the name "William Rogers" was the principal part, claiming
to own the exclusive right to such stamps by ths agreemant of the first
William Rogers and by long-cont ued use. In a suit brought by the
last-mentioned company against the other for an injunction against
the use of the name " William Rogers " as a trade-mark, it was held:—

1. That the second William Rogers had the right to use his name as the

important part of his trade-mark so long as it was accompanied with devices to distinguish it from the trade-marks of the plaintiffs, and was not used for the purpose of misleading purchasers, although purchasers who took note only of the words " William Rogers," or were not familiar with the stamps of the plaintiffs, were liable to be misled.

2. That under the arrangement by which the goods were manufactured by

the defendant corporation under the superintendence of the second William Rogers, and with an interest on his part in the manufacture and sale, they had a right to use the name of William Rogers in their trade-mark in the same manner that he could have done if he had been the direct manufacturer.

When the second bearer of a name which has become the distinguishing part of a trade-mark used by another manufacturer, uses the same name as a part of his own trade-mark, with proper distinguishing devices, it is not a sufficient reason for enjoining the latter against the use of the name, that the goods of both manufacturers become known in the market by the same name. He is not to be injuriously affected by any use the public may make of a mark which the law allows him to use.

If purchasers who will take note of nothing but the name upon the trademark are misled, and there is consequent loss to either of the parties entitled to use the name, it must be borne as a consequence of the act of taking the name as a trade-mark.

[Argued November 10th, 1886,—decided February 25th, 1887.]

Suit for an injunction against the use of a certain name in a trade-mark, and for an account and damages; brought to the Superior Court in Hartford County. The following facts were found by a committee:—

The plaintiff is a corporation organized in 1872, under the joint-stock laws of this state, located in Hartford, and engaged in the manufacture and sale of spoons, forks and knives. It succeeded to the business of a partnership of the same name which had been formed in 1865.

For one or two years after its organization as a corporation its sales were considerable, amounting to nearly $140,000 in 1873, which was its best year. After that its sales gradually decreased, until, in 1877, they amounted to less than $40,000. From that time forward until the spring of 1879 the business was still smaller, and the goods which purported to be of its manufacture were made, plated, and

a limited extent, on sale in the markets of the country, and were sold to and by dealers in Hartford.

In the year 1879 the management of the William Rogers Manufacturing Company was consolidated with that of the Rogers Cutlery Company, another corporation located in Hartford, and was officered by the managers of the latter company, and from that time the business of the plaintiff has considerably increased.

The goods manufactured by the plaintiff have had a good reputation.

About the year 1847 three brothers, all now deceased, William, Asa H., and Simeon S. Rogers, engaged in the manufacture of electro-silver-plated spoons, forks and knives at Hartford, under the partnership name of Rogers Brothers. Prior to that time William and Simeon had been engaged in the general jewelry and plated-ware business in State street at Hartford, under the firm name of William Rogers & Co. Asa had learned the art of electro-silverplating, and was the only practical plater of the three.

The spoons, forks and knives manufactured by the copartnership were stamped " [Star] Rogers Brothers A 1," or " [Star] Rogers Bros. A 1," and such stamps became well known in the trade as indicating goods manufactured by the firm. In the copartnership thus formed William traveled, selling goods, and when at home exercised a general superintendence over the whole business. Simeon managed the store. Asa did the plating. William Rogers, Jr., was employed as a general assistant.

Electro-silver-plating was then a novel manufacture, and because principally of their integrity in the manufacture, the goods of the Rogers Brothers being found to answer their recommendation as honest goods, the goods of their manufacture acquired a valuable reputation in the market, and as early as 1853 became known as " Rogers goods."

[Facts are then found in much detail with regard to various partnerships or corporations with which some or all the Rogers brothers were connected, and which were authorized to use the name of " Rogers " as a part of their trade-marks, and especially the name of William Rogers, for the purpose of showing how far the plaintiff corporation was entitled to the trade-marks which it was seeking to protect; but as the court does not consider this question in deciding the case, the facts that relate to it are omitted.]

Before the bringing of this suit the following stamps had at various times been put upon goods sent into the market by the copartnership of William Rogers Manufacturing Company, the plaintiff corporation of the same name, and the Rogers Cutlery Company:—" 1847, Wm. Rogers & Son A 1."—"Wm. Rogers & Son."—" 1776 Wm. Rogers & Son."—" (Anchor) Wm. Rogers & Son AA."—" (Anchor) W. R. & Son AA."—"1865 Wm. Rogers Mfg Co. AA."— " Rogers Nickel Silver."—" Rogers Cutlery Company."— " Rogers Silver Plate Company." 

The stamp first adopted by the copartnership was " 1847, Wm. Rogers & Son A 1." Having been enjoined against the use of the prefix " 1847," and the suffix " A 1," upon the petition of the Meriden Britannia Company in September, 1872, they for a short time used " Wm. Rogers & Son," and " 1776 Wm. Rogers & Son," and then adopted " (Anchor) Wm. Rogers & Son AA," and " 1865 Wm. Rogers Mfg Co.," which has been sometimes used with and sometimes without the prefix " 1865." " (Anchor) W. R. & Son AA." was used only on small articles from lack of room. "Rogers Cutlery Co." was used by that company and not by the plaintiff, and " Rogers Silver Plate Co." was used only on some job lots.

Wm. Rogers died in 1873; Simeon S. Rogers in 1874; and Asa H. Rogers in 1876.

During the respective lives of these brothers they uniformly claimed that the original stamp of " Rogers Brothers " and the other so-called Rogers stamps used by them, or either of them, or by the companies with which they or either of them were connected, were their personal trademarks, and denoted that the goods to which they were applied were manufactured under their personal superintendence and guaranty of quality.

While the brothers, together or separately, were engaged in such manufacture, either for themselves or for the companies with which they were connected, the stamps so used by them or either of them did represent, and were understood by the public to represent, such superintendence and guaranty; but the stamps continued to be used by the companies after such connection had ceased, under a claim of right so to do, and have come to represent not the personal superintendence and guaranty of the brothers or either of them, but that the goods bearing such stamps are of the same good quality as the goods which were manufactured under the personal superintendence of the brothers, and that the companies using them are the legitimate successors to the brothers in the use of the marks.

The marks are valuable to the parties using them. There was nothing peculiar or mysterious in the art of electrosilver-plating, known to the Rogerses and not known to any skillful silver-plater, and it was their diligence, integrity and skill, and their persistent and undeviating requirement that their trade-marks or names should be placed only upon goods of their standard by the various companies with which they were connected in business, that marks used by them, of which the name " Rogers " formed a part, gave to such goods a valuable reputation.

By reason of the numerous stamps on spoons, forks and knives, containing the word " Rogers," as before stated, and of the efforts of the various concerns who had used such stamps since 1847 to promote the sales of their goods as " Rogers goods," the word " Rogers " had, before the bringing of this suit, become the conspicuous and familiar part of such stamps to a large class of the retail buyers; but jobbers and those retail buyers who are informed in relation to the trade-marks, and the several manufacturers represented by them, readily distinguish between the stamps of the different manufacturers by the words or symbols which such stamps do not possess in common. Many of those retail buyers who buy only by the stamp, look only to the word " Rogers," and are for this reason liable to confound the various stamps, but generally the retail buyers who desire any information on the subject of the maker of the goods rely upon the dealer for such information.

A large proportion of the ultimate purchasers are not familiar with the various marks and their signification, as indicating a particular make, but look merely to see if they are Rogers goods, and usually rely upon the statements of the seller, and are satisfied if they are stamped with the name " Rogers " in some form.

A limited portion of such purchasers are familiar with the various stamps, and such have no difficulty in distinguishing one stamp from another, and are not liable to be deceived if they desire a particular stamp.

In the year 1864 William Rogers, Jr., and William J. Pierce formed a business connection, under which silverplated spoons and forks were furnished to the trade, bearing the stamp of William Rogers, Jr., the arrangement being that Rogers should receive a commission for the right to stamp such goods with his name ; Rogers to sell the goods as the manufacturer, and Pierce not to be personally known in the business.

William Rogers, Jr., is the son of William Rogers, Sr. He had been brought up by his father in the jewelry and plated-ware business of William Rogers & Co., at State street in Hartford, and became associated with his father in 1856, under the firm name of Wm. Rogers & Son, which firm continued until the year 1861. He had also assisted his father generally in the original business of Rogers Brothers, and had always been in familiar association with his father in the latter's business affairs. His name originally was William H. Rogers, but, somewhere about 1856, he changed his name to William Rogers, Jr., for the purpose of being more closely identified with his father, and had become known by that name.

The goods sold under this arrangement with Pierce were plated by him according to the Rogers standard, as agreed by the parties, and were advertised and sold as " Genuine Rogers goods," and equal to the goods of the original Rogers Brothers.

This arrangement continued about a year, and until the formation of the copartnership of the Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company in 1865.

The Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company co-partnership continued the use of the trade-marks after William Rogers and William Rogers Jr., who had been members of it, left the firm in March, 1868, and within a short time after obtained a temporary injunction against the Rogerses, father and son, restraining them from using the trade-marks or either of them; from representing that any person other than the Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company had the right to use them; from interfering with the free use of the trade-marks by the Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company, and from stating that that company had no right to use them. Wm. Rogers, Jr., was afterwards found in contempt for a violation of this injunction, and fined by the court therefor. The injunction continued in force until after the organization of the plaintiff corporation, when it was withdrawn by consent, without costs.

The Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company continued its business as a copartnership and the use of the trade-marks until a transfer was made in January, 1872, to the plaintiff corporation. This corporation continued the business at Hartford, at the same place and in the same building, making goods of a good quality, and stamping them with the trade-marks ("Anchor) Wm. Rogers & Son, A A.," and "1865, Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co., AA.," and other stamps to a limited extent, and has claimed the right to use these stamps.

The goods manufactured by them or for them bearing these stamps have been up to the standard of quality known as the Rogers standard. The standard has in fact been raised by the plaintiff and by the other companies making the so-called " Rogers goods."

he goods made and sold by the copartnership and the> plaintiff corporation became familiarly known in the market as " William Rogers goods " and " Hartford goods."

The plaintiff has on signs, circulars, blotters and in advertisements used the name " Wm. Rogers & Son" as a business name, from which it might be naturally inferred by the public that William Rogers or his son William Rogers, Jr., was connected with the manufacture or business, or was the firm conducting the business. The managers of the plaintiff corporation have also stamped job lots of goods with the stamp " Rogers Silver Plate Co.," and registered this stamp as a trade-mark, there being no such company in existence. Such use and register was for the purpose of attempting to control the name and prevent other parties from using it. 

The managers of the corporation have also sent into the market since its consolidation with the Rogers Cutlery Company, spoons and forks stamped " Rogers Cutlery Co.," as one of its stamps, the stamp being used on goods on hand at the time of the consolidation of the two companies, which had been manufactured by the Rogers Cutlery Co. It has maintained to the public that its stamps are those of the original, genuine Rogers Brothers.

The defendant is a joint-stock corporation located at Wallingford, in this state, and for some years prior to 1878 had been engaged in the business of making and selling plated ware, both flat and hollow, stamping its flat-ware " Simpson, H. M. & Co.," or with the initials " S. H. M. & Co.," accompanied with devices denoting the quality.

The hollow-ware, stamped with the name of the corporation, sold well and had a high reputation in the market, but its flat-ware, although of good quality and finish, did not find a ready market, and its sales were quite limited.

Prior to 1878 the defendant, through its officers and agents, had made several attempts to connect with itself in some way some man by the name of Rogers, with a view to stamping such name upon its goods. It had a contract in 1867 with William Rogers and William Rogers, Jr., with reference to the use of the stamp " Win. Rogers & Son" upon its hollow-ware, and such was so used to some extent. 

The persons who composed its management had negotiations in 1876 with F. Willson Rogers, a younger son of William Rogers, at that time without practical experience in the business, looking to the formation of a company to be called the Rogers Silver Plate Company, under which name an organization was made and published, and that name was stamped upon a small lot of goods, but the negotiations fell through and nothing came of it. In 1872 some negotiations were had with one William W. Rogers, a machinist, with no practical knowledge of the plated ware business, and who was not connected in any way with the William Rogers before referred to.

In 1878 a contract between William Rogers and William Rogers, Jr., and the Meriden Britannia Company having expired, William Rogers having died, and William Rogers, Jr., being then out of business, the latter applied to the defendant for the purpose of making an arrangement with the corporation for the manufacture by it of silver-plated forks, spoons and knives, under his supervision and control, and with his stamp as a trade-mark. Some of the officers of the defendant had endeavored, in 1868, to make some arrangement of the kind with him and his father, but they then entered into the contract with the Meriden Britannia Company before referred to.

The officers of the defendant were at first suspicious that his application was made for the purpose of obtaining better terms in a new contract with the Meriden Britannia Company, but on becoming convinced that his proposition was in good faith, and that his relations with the latter company were fully terminated, they requested him to make a definite proposition, which was done, and the result was the making of a contract between himself and the defendant, of which the following are the parts important to the present case. The defendants are designated in the contract as the

party of the first part and William Rogers as the party of the second part. The contract is dated May 6th, 1878.

" 1. The party of the second part agrees, upon the execution of this contract, to enter into the service of the party 'of the first part, with the general duty of superintending the electroplating, burnishing, buffing and finishing for the market of silver-plated flat-ware goods, manufactured by the party of the first part, of designing and determining the patterns to be used for such ware, of superintending the preparation and printing of all circulars, labels and boxes required for the sale of such ware, and of promoting, by all means in his power, the profitable sale of all goods, the preparation of which for market is placed under his superintendence by this contract.

"2. It is understood that the grade for plating of all silver-plated goods finished under this contract shall be according to the standard adopted by William Rogers, Sr., and also practiced by him and the party of the second part in their business copartnership of William Rogers & Son, and for spoons and forks shall be according to the following schedule :— * * * And the party of the second part agrees faithfully to inspect, oversee and superintend the plating of all goods which are the subject of this contract, and to see that such plating is in all respects so done as to make said goods in that respect equal to the standard aforesaid; and for further security thereof, it is mutually agreed that the said party of the first part shall provide a suitable person, who shall, under oath, weigh such goods before and after plating, and keep a true record of such weight in a book to be kept for that purpose. * * * And said party of the second part shall have free access to all parts of the factory where such goods are being made, plated, finished, or stored.

" 3. Said party of the second part further agrees faithfully to give his attention and supervision to the burnishing, buffing and assorting for the market, of all goods plated in accordance with the foregoing article, * * * and no commission, as is hereinafter provided, shall be paid by the party of the first part on the sales of any goods so prepared for the market not of the first quality, or such as are known as imperfects or seconds. And from all such imperfect goods the name of Rogers shall be erased."

" 5. The said party of the second part further agrees to furnish such patterns as may be needed for the goods which are the subject of the foregoing articles. * * * The styles and patterns used for goods so made shall not be used during this contract for any goods not made under his supervision, as aforesaid, and are to bear his name exclusively.

" 6. Said party of the second part further agrees to give his time, abilities and influence, so far as may be necessary, to establishing and increasing the sale of the goods made under this contract, and that he will not, either for himself or others, directly or indirectly, while this contract is in force, engage in making or selling any article of what is commonly known as flat-ware, or to aid others in the same in any way whatever. * * * The party of the first part agrees not to use, directly or indirectly, any other name of Rogers during the continuance of this contract.

"7. All goods made under the superintendence of the party of the second part as provided by this contract shall be authenticated by the stamp of his name ..hereon, with such accompanying device as he may desire, and shall be so stamped at the factory of the party of the first part in Wallingford, and nowhere else, and the stamps used for that purpose shall be accessible to either party at all business hours. No other stamp shall be used on such goods without the consent of the party of the second part. Nor shall such stamp or device be used on any goods which are not the subject of this contract. Upon the termination of this contract the right to use said stamp shall remain with the party of the second part."

" 9. The party of the first part, on its part, agrees to use all reasonable efforts to effect sales of the goods which are the subject of this contract, and to make the same efforts for that purpose that they do for the sale of hollow ware or other goods manufactured by them. The agents for the

sale of the last-mentioned goods shall solicit orders for the sale of the former, and the party of the first part agrees not to imitate, by label or otherwise, the goods which have been stamped by the party of the second part."

" 11. The party of the first part agrees to pay the party of the second part, as compensation for the services hereinbefore mentioned, a commission on all sales of what is commonly known as flat-ware, bearing his stamp as aforesaid, as follows, to wit:— * * *

12. "All lawsuits against either party, involving the right to use the stamp hereinbefore mentioned, shall be defended at the expense of the party of the second part, and any judgment therein satisfied by him."

14. " This contract is to continue for the term of fifteen years from its date, unless sooner dissolved by mutual consent, with the privilege to the party of the first part of renewing the same for the same or any less period."

William Rogers at once entered into business with the defendant under this contract, and the business has been conducted by the parties in compliance with its terms.

The officers and managers of the defendant corporation were well aware of the value of the name " Rogers " as a stamp on silver-plated ware, if the person whom it represented belonged to the family of either of the Rogers brothers, and had been connected with them, or either of them, in the production of silver-plated goods, and who had a reputation in relation thereto, and was known to the trade; and they entered into the contract for the purpose of availing themselves of the use of the name of William Rogers as a trade-mark upon their flat-ware which should be made under his personal supervision and control, and also of availing themselves of his taste, skill and judgment in relation to the design, style and finish of such goods, and of his knowledge of the trade, and from the belief that the goods so manufactured, stamped and advertised would be well received as genuine Rogers goods.

When the contract was made the business of the plaintiff was at a low ebb, as hereinbefore stated; it was not in the market as a formidable competitor and the defendant had no knowledge that it was in the market, and its conduct in making the contract was not actuated by any motive towards the plaintiff, but its motive was to enable it to compete more successfully in the market with the manufacturers of such goods. 

The effect of the use of the Rogers name was soon manifest in the increased and increasing sale of their goods so manufactured and stamped.

The defendant was well equipped for the manufacture of such goods of good style, quality and finish, before the contract with William Rogers was entered into, and no change has been made merely on account of his employment.

The goods made under the contract have been stamped " (Eagle) Wm. Rogers (Star) " in accordance with its provisions and for the purpose therein disclosed, and under the claim that by reason of his superintendence and control of the manufacture it was entitled to have the benefit in the market of the knowledge of the public that its goods were so manufactured, and the advantage in trade of whatever reputation William Rogers had acquired by reason of his connection theretofore with such manufacture and sale of electro-silver-plated goods in his association with the various parties with whom he has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of such goods, and by his long association with his father in his business operations relating to such manufacture.

From his boyhood William Rogers, Jr., has had some connection with the manufacture and selling of electroplated silver-ware, principally spoons, forks and knives, by the various concerns with which his father was associated. Since 1864 down to the time of his connection with the defendant, his name had, by reason of his relation to the business as hereinbefore stated, and the efforts to that end of those with whom he had been associated, been known to the trade as that of the eon of William Rogers, Sr., with whom he had been associated in the manufacture of electrosilver-plated goods, and had in consequence thereof obtaineda valuable reputation, so that-goods stamped with his name, as indicating his supervision and guaranty of their manufacture, had by reason thereof a better selling value in the market.

From 1865 to 1878 he had been almost constantly employed in connection with such manufacture with the Wm. Rogers Manufacturing Company at Hartford, and the Meriden Britannia Company at Meriden, as before stated.

The portrait of William Rogers, Jr., in connection with that of his father, was extensively circulated by both of those companies, by which William Rogers, Jr., was prominently brought to the notice of the trade in connection with his father.

William Rogers, Jr., was not a manufacturer in the sense of making the blanks, or plating or finishing the goods. The value of his name consisted in his knowledge of the business, his skill and judgment in relation to the style and finish of the goods and the requirements of the trade, acquired by his long association with his father in the business, and in the fact that he as well as his father had always insisted that his name should only be used on goods of a certain high standard of quality. It was these characteristics which caused the great reputation of his father.

The blanks of the defendant's goods are made by the Simpson Nickel Silver Company of Wallingford, under contract with the defendant, as the blanks of the Meriden Britannia Company were prepared by Wallace & Sons during the period of William Rogers's connection with that company under the contract of 1868.

This manufacture includes the making, finishing and trimming the blanks. It is supervised and controlled in all its departments by William Rogers, and the work is required to be done to his acceptance, and his requirements have been close and exacting. This supervision also extends to the patterns and dies. The plating and completing of the manufacture, and its preparation for the market, are done at the factory of the defendant, and are under the same charge, supervision and control.

In plating, every piece is counted and weighed, and then plated, and afterwards weighed again to ascertain that the proper amount of silver is on each piece. This weighing is done by a sworn weigher, and the amount is recorded daily in a book for the purpose. Every portion of the work in the plating department, in flat-ware, is under the supervision and charge of William Rogers. In exercising this superintendence and charge he has been faithful, and, in particular, scrupulous to have his goods conform to his own standard of high quality ware, and the reputation of his family name.

The goods thus made and stamped " (Eagle) Wm. Rogers (Star) " are equal in quality to any goods in the market bearing a Rogers stamp.

His services are valuable to the defendant, and the stamp, by reason of its indication of his personal supervision and guaranty, is of special value to it. The arrangement existing between him and the defendant is valuable to him, and it is only through the medium of some such arrangement that he is able to make his special training in the business available to himself.

The stamp " (Eagle) Wm. Rogers (Star)" was not adopted for the purpose of imitating the trade-mark of the plaintiff, but as a new and distinctive trade-mark, indicating his personal supervision and control.

The stamp is put upon the goods in the usual and customary place and manner.

There is no difficulty in distinguishing between the stamp " (Eagle) Wm. Rogers (Star) " and the stamp "1865, Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co., AA.", and " (Anchor) Wm. Rogers & Son AA.", by those dealers or others who will examine the whole stamp and are familiar with the stamps which are used by the plaintiff; but those who regard the word " Rogers " or " Wm. Rogers " only, or who are not familiar with the stamps of the plaintiff, might readily confound them. As before stated, a large class of dealers is familiar with the various stamps used by the different makers of the socalled " Rogers goods," and would readily distinguish the stamp of the defendant from all others, while many small dealers, and a large portion of the ultimate purchasers, are not familiar with the different stamps and their signification, and such dealers and purchasers usually rely upon the representations of the seller, and are satisfied with any stamp bearing the name Rogers, if they are represented to be genuine.

But a dealer or ultimate purchaser who desired goods made by the plaintiff, and was not familiar with its stamp, would readily take goods with the defendant's stamp, from the word " Wm. Rogers " being on the goods.

Purchasers who have a preference for a particular manufacture are as a rule familiar with its stamp, and persons so familiar would not be liable to confound the defendant's stamp with such, if they were observed.

The goods made by the plaintiff and by the copartnership of the same name became known in the market by the general appellation of " Wm. Rogers goods," and no other goods known by that name had ever been in the market except those made and sold by that copartnership and the plaintiff corporation, until the time that goods made by the defendant were put upon the market, since which time these goods have generally become known in the trade as " Wm. Rogers goods."

A purchaser ordering from a dealer simply " Wm. Rogers goods " would be as likely to get goods made by the defendant as those made by the plaintiff, unless he should designate them as Hartford or Wallingford goods, by which they are usually distinguished in the trade. And if the order were thus specific, it might be filled by the goods of either if he was not familiar with the respective stamps, or being familiar neglected to observe them.

The defendant has extensively advertised its goods as " the celebrated William Rogers goods," and as made under the personal supervision and guaranty of William Rogers, and explaining who he is and his former business connections. The plaintiff has followed this by advertisements describing its goods as "the genuine William Rogersgoods." 

Prior to these advertisements by the defendant no goods had been advertised as " William Rogers goods." Numerous circulars and advertisements issued by the defendant were annexed to the finding, which cannot be inserted here. The following is one of the briefer ones :—

" Sectional Plated Spoons and Forks.

" [Eagle] William Rogers x. 12.

" Triple Plated upon all points exposed to wear.

" Plated by the method invented by

    " William Rogers in 1855,

" Who was the original inventor of

" Sectional Plate.

" Wm. Rogers, 

" (Since 1878) Wallingford, Conn., formerly of Hartford and "West Meriden."

The defendant knew that the use of their trade mark and their circulars and advertisements would cause their goods to become known in the market as " William Rogers goods." They were not however intended or calculated to induce the public to believe that the goods designated as " the celebrated William Rogers goods" were manufactured by the plaintiff. The purpose of the circulars and advertisements was to direct public attention to the fact that the manufacture of its goods was controlled by the William Rogers whose name they bear, and to the celebrity of its goods as it is claimed by reason of such control and association with his name.

The defendant knew that the goods which had been made and sold by the plaintiff had become known as " William Rogers goods," and when its advertisements were published it knew that the plaintiffs goods were in the market, and that it was continuing business.

The circular referred to is not misleading to a person familiar with the facts stated therein, and with the fact that William Rogers, Sr., died in 1873; but persons not so familiar might be led by it to suppose that the William Rogers who was the inventor of sectional plate in 1855, was in the

employ of the defendant at the time the circular was published.

Upon these facts the case was reserved for the advice of this court.

F. Chamberlin and 0. H. Platt, with whom were J. P. Platt and H. R. Mills, for the plaintiff.

first. The stamps " (Anchor) Wm. Rogers & Son AA " and " 1865 Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co. AA" are the plaintiff's trade-marks. (1) They were adopted, with the assent of the Rogerses, by the partnership which preceded the plaintiff. (2) They were conveyed by the copartnership, together with its property, business and good will, to the plaintiff corporation. (3) The transfer to the plaintiff corporation was made with the assent of William Rogers, Jr., Wm. Rogers, Sr., being then imbecile and incompetent. (4) And the trade-marks have been in actual use by the plaintiff upon its goods continuously since its organization in 1872 and prior thereto by the partnership from their adoption in 1865. The record is explicit on all these points. Thus it appears that these stamps, adopted in 1866, have been continuously used by the partnership and corporation to the present time—openly, adversely, and under claim of right as their trade-marks. '• 

The trade-mark recognized by the common law is generally the growth of a considerable period of use rather than a sudden invention. * * * At common law the exclusive right to it grows out of its use, not its mere adoption." Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. R., 94. 

" It is the actual use of the trade-mark, affixed to the merchandise of the manufacturer, and this alone, which can impart to it the element of property. The mere declaration of a person, however long and however extensively published, that he claims property in a word as his trade-mark, cannot even tend to make it his property." Candee v. Deere, 54 111., 439. " The right to use a trade-mark is above all other rights one which depends upon use." Lowell, J., in William Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Rogers $• Spurr Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. Rep., 495. The plaintiff's right to the use of these trade-marks may be regarded as settled by authority. William Rogers Mfg. Co. v. Spurr $• Rogers Mfg. Co., last cited; Meriden Britannia Co. v. Parker, 39 Conn., 460; Rogers $ Brother v. Rogers, 51 id., 121.

Second. The stamp " (Eagle) Wm. Rogers (Star)," as used by the defendant, is an infringement of the plaintiff's trade-marks.

1. An exact imitation or similarity is not necessary. In Meriden Britannia Co. v. Parker it was found that the defendant's trade-mark resembled the plaintiff's " to that degree that it was calculated to deceive unwary purchasers and those who buy such goods hastily and with but little examination of the trade-mark; but purchasers who read the entire trade-mark on the defendant's goods, and who know the petitioner's trade-mark, cannot be deceived, nor can they mistake the respondent's goods for those of the petitioner." 

Upon this finding the court by Carpenter, J., remarked:—" The fact that careful buyers, who scrutinize trade-marks closely, are not deceived, does not materially affect the question. It only shows that the injury is less ; not that there is no injury. Another class of purchasers, to whom large quantities are sold, are deceived. Such purchasers, perhaps, will have no reason to complain, as they, if they are injured by the deception, must attribute the injury to their own want of diligence. But the petitioners stand on entirely different ground. 

No amount of diligence on their part will guard against the injury; an injunction is their only adequate remedy, and to that we think they are entitled." Meriden Britannia Co. v. Parker, 39 Conn., 460. " The criterion is not the certainty of success in misleading the public, but its probability—or even its possibility." Dttee, J., in Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Spear, 2 Saudf., 549, approved by Mr. Upton in his work on trademarks, p. 136, and by Judge Carpenter in Boardman v. Meriden Britannia Co., 35 Conn., 415. To the same effect are—Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Thomas, Cox's Manual, No. 665; Royal Baking Powder Co. v. McQuade, id., No. 671; Wammtta Mills v. Allen, 12 Phila., 535; Q-lenny v. Smith, Vol. Liv.—35

11 Jur., N. S., 964; Leggett v. Sines, 2 Cent. L. J., 110; Avery v. Meikle, 27 U. S. Patent Office Gazette, 1027; Manufacturing Co. v. Trainer^ 101 U. S. R., 65; Landreth v. Lcmdreth, 22 Fed. Rep., 41. In Williams v. Brooks, 50 Conn., 280, the finding was of resemblance " to such a degree that they are liable to deceive careless and unwary purchasers who buy such goods hastily and with little examination; but purchasers who read the entire trademark and label on the defendants' goods cannot be deceived nor mistake the defendants' goods for the plaintiffs." It was not found that the defendants' goods were sold for the plaintiffs, and the defendants were found to have acted in good faith; but the defendants were enjoined. The findings in this case, in respect to similarity of marks, are as follows: " The stamp of the defendant is put upon the goods in the manner customary with other manufacturers;" that is, in the same place and manner as the plaintiffs. " Those who examine the whole stamp and are familiar with the stamps used by the plaintiff, have no difficulty in distinguishing ;" which only means that there are differences which close examination and comparison reveal; but " those who regard the word Rogers or William Rogers only or who are not familiar with the stamp of the plaintiff, might readily confound them. A dealer or ultimate purchaser who desired goods made by the plaintiff, and was not familiar with its stamp, would readily take goods with the defendant's stamp, from the word ' 

William Rogers' being on the goods. The plaintiffs goods had been, for ten years or more, distinguished by the general appellation of ' William Rogers goods.' Since the defendant's goods, stamped as aforesaid, have been put upon the market, they have become generally known as 'William Rogers goods." "A purchaser ordering from a dealer simply 'William Rogers goods' would be as likely to get goods made by the defendant as those made by the plaintiff, unless he should designate the make, as Hartford or Wallingford goods, by which they are usually distinguished in the trade; and if the order were thus specific it might be filled by the goods of either, if he was not familiar with the respective stamps, or, being familiar, neglected to observe them." We submit that the rinding, upon the point of similarity of marks, is quite beyond that to be found in any of the cases in which the court has granted an injunction.

2. It is not necessary to show that the defendants have acted fraudulently. The law is the same both as to trademarks and trade-names. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Loog, L. R., 8 App. Gas., 15; Sebastian on Trade-marks, 226. This being a suit in equity the law which applies is that stated by Lord Cottenham, in Millington v. Fox, 3 MyLne & Craig, 338, where he says, " I see no reason to believe that there has in this case been a fraudulent use of the plaintiffs' marks. It is positively denied by the answer, and there is no evidence to show that the defendants were even aware of the existence of the plaintiffs as a company manufacturing steel. In short it does not appear to me that there was any fraudulent intention in the use of the marks. That circumstance, however, does not deprive the plaintiffs of their right to the exclusive use of those names." Sebastian in his last edition (1884) says, referring to this case, (p. 9,) " In equity the protection to the manufacturer was carried a stage farther in 1833 by the decision of Lord Cottenham in Millington v. Fox, since which time it has not been necessary to prove an actual fraudulent intention, the remedy being obtainable if the defendants' conduct has been such as to produce the effects of fraud, though he may, in fact, have acted in perfect innocence." Again, at page 11, he says: " It is not necessary that there should be fraud in the sense that the infringer knowingly and willfully makes a fraudulent attempt to appropriate to himself the fruits of another's reputation; if he acts so that custom intended for another is diverted to himself, and that the public buy and pay for one thing while intending to buy and pay for another, so that both vendor and purchaser are injured, there is fraud and the animus of the infringer is unimportant." And again, on page 156, he says:—"But the fraud does not consist in an intention to deceive on the part of the defendant, but in an actual deception, or in the creation of a probability of deception, independently of any fraudulent intention." In reply to a similar objection raised by the defendant in the case of this plaiptiff against Rogers & Spurr Mfg. Co., 11 Fed. R., 495, Judge Lowell says: " I believe it to be true that the Greenfield Rogers did not inquire, nor did the defendants care, whose reputation they were making available; but I am of opinion that any one of those who rightfully use the name may enjoin its interfering use by others." See also Singer Manf. Co. v. Wilson, L. R., 3 App. Gas., 391; Filley v. Fansett, 44 Misso., 173. But we need not rest upon this claim. It is found that " the defendants knew that the goods which had been made and sold by the plaintiff had become known as ' Wm. Rogers goods,' and when said advertisement was published, that their goods were in the market and that they were continuing business," and also that " the defendant knew that the use of said trade-mark and said advertisement would cause their goods to become known in the market as the ' Wm. Rogers goods.' " 

" All that courts of justice can do is to say that no trader can adopt a trademark so resembling that of a rival as that ordinary purchasers, purchasing with ordinary caution, are likely to be misled. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the resemblance must be such as would deceive persons who should see the two marks placed side by side. 

The rule so restricted would be of no practical use. If a purchaser, looking at the article offered him, would naturally be led, from the mark impressed on it, to suppose it to be the production of the rival manufacturer, and would purchase it in that belief, the court considers the use of such a mark to be fraudulent. But I go further. I do not consider the actual physical resemblance of the two marks to be the sole question for consideration. If the goods of a manufacturer have, from the mark or device he has used, become known in the market by a particular name, I think that the adoption by a rival trader of any mark which will cause his goods to bear the same name in the market, may be as much a violation of the rights of that rival as the actual copy of his device." Seixo v. Provezende, L. R., 1 Ch., 192. See also Lee v. Haley, L. R., 5 Ch., 155; Singer Manf. Co. v. Looy, L. R., 8 App. Cas., 15; S. <7., L. R., 18 Ch. Div., 417; Hendriks v. Montagu, L. R., 17 Ch. Div., 638; Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall., 323; Holmes, Booth ft Haydens \. Holmes, Booth ft Atwood Mfg. Co., 37 Conn., 278; Meriden Britannia Co. v. Parker, 39 id., 450. The defendants will claim that at the time of making the contract with William Rogers their conduct was not actuated by any motive towards the plaintiff; and that they had no knowledge that the plaintiff's goods were in the market, and will ask this court to believe that they were actuated by no improper motive, but solely by the desire to secure, in the manufacture of their goods, the superintendence and alleged skill of this " Rogers." 

 If the defendants could establish ignorance on their part, we submit that such ignorance would not excuse them. But the finding shows both knowledge and fraudulent action as to the material parts of the case. " Prior to 1878 the defendant, through its officers and agents, had made several attempts to connect with itself in some way some man by the name of 'Rogers,' with a view to stamping such name upon its goods." This language is peculiar and suggestive, and clearly defines the animus of the defendants. The defendants had tried their own name; and while so stamped " their flat-ware, though of good quality and finish, did not find a ready market and its sales were quite limited." They were well aware of the large sale of flat-ware of similar quality bearing a so-called Rogers stamp. They wanted some Rogers, they cared not who, provided the name could be used upon their goods. Having negotiated, without success, in three other directions, they secured the present association. Their motive in making this contract is found to have been " to enable them to compete more successfully in the market with the makers of such goods, that is,' genuine Rogers goods.'" Their first purpose was to secure the name " William Rogers," as a stamp, and it was the use of his name that is found to have

effected the increased and increasing sale of their goods so manufactured and stamped. If in the making of the contract the defendant was not actuated by any motive toward the plaintiff as distinguished from other manufacturers of Rogers goods, yet as one of such manufacturers, of whom there were but three, its injury, though less perhaps in amount, was none the less real. And the motive found to have actuated the defendant as against such manufacturers in general may be relied upon by the plaintiff in this action. But further, the wrong complained of is not the making of the contract with Rogers, but the advertising, stamping and selling of goods which followed. At the time of these acts it is distinctly found that " they knew the plaintiff's goods were in the market, and that they were continuing business." 

These later acts at least were done with full knowledge of the plaintiff's rights. We quote the finding on this point: " The defendant knew that the goods which had been made and sold by the plaintiff had become known as 'Wm. Rogers goods,' and when the advertisement was published that, then1 goods were in the market and that they were continuing business." " The defendant knew that the use of said trademark and said advertisement would cause their goods to bebecome known in the market as'Wm. Rogers goods.'" 

Nevertheless they continued the use of the stamp and published and circulated the advertisement in its aid, until they had created such confusion that careless and unwary buyers, and those not familiar with the plaintiff's stamps, or who did not examine the whole stamp, would confound them and buy their goods for those made by the plaintiff. The result followed as they knew it would and as they must be held to have intended that it should.

Third.—The defendant's stamp has given to their goods the exact name by which the plaintiffs goods had previously been known, and this fact alone is sufficient reason for the injunction sought. The finding upon this point is full and explicit. " The plaintiff's goods, from the time of the partnership, had been familiarly known as ' Wm. Rogers goods,' and no other goods by that name had ever been in the market until the time that goods made by the defendant were put upon the market, since which time said goods have generally been known in the trade as ' Wm. Rogers goods.' " This case is in this respect like that of Orr, Ewiny & Co. v. Johnson, L. R., 13 Ch. Div., 434, in which the plaintiffs, dealers in yarn which they exported to India, had a ticket containing, among other things, two elephants, which ticket had given the yarn several names by which it was sold and familiarly known, one being the " two elephant goods." The defendants, who had for some years sold yarns bearing a ticket containing, among other tilings, one elephant, began to export similar yarn to the same market, and placed upon it a ticket containing two elephants, but in several other respects different from the ticket of the plaintiffs, and the defendant's elephants themselves were in several particulars unlike those used by the plaintiffs. In an action by the plaintiffs for an injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing their rights it was held—

(1) That if the goods of a trader have acquired in the market a name derived from a part of the trade-mark which he affixes to them, a rival trader is not entitled to use a ticket which is likely to lead to the application of the same name to his goods, even though that name is not the only name by which the goods of the first trader have been known, or though it has always been used in conjunction with some other word. 

(2) That though it was not probable that English purchasers or Indian dealers would be deceived, it was not improbable that the ultimate purchasers in India would be, in consequence of defendant's ticket being calculated to obtain the same name of "Bhe ffothe" or "two elephant," as the plaintiffs'. 

(3) That it was not necessary to prove any fraudulent intention on the part of the defendants. 

(4) That the two elephants forming a material and substantial part of the plaintiffs' trade-mark having been taken by the defendants, the burden was upon them to disprove the probability of deception, and not upon the plaintiffs to prove it." Justice Fry said:—" It appears to me that there is a great deal of evidence, to which I attach weight, to show that these goods are sold largely by name, and that although the first dealers no doubt look at the tickets, yet that the ultimate purchasers and the purchasers from the dealers in Bombay, probably do not look at the tickets, and at any rate are liable to be deceived by the name by which the goods are sold." In another part of his judgment the same justice quotes from the case of Edehten v. Edehten, I DeG., J. & S., 202, in which Lord WestBury observed upon the fact that the goods derived their trade-name from that particular part of the ticket, and says— 

" I think therefore that when the defendants did take these two elephants they took that which was a material and substantial part of the plaintiffs' ticket. Now what is the result of that ? It appears to me that the result of tliis is, it throws upon the defendants the burden of proving that their ticket did not deceive the purchaser so that they would believe that the defendants' goods were the plaintiffs' goods," and continues, quoting James, L. J., in Ford v. Foster, L. R., 7 Ch., 623, to the same effect, and O'hagan, L. J , in Singer Machine Mfg. Co. v. Wilson, L. R., 3 App. Cas., 395, "

If one man will use a name, the use of which has been validly appropriated by another, he ought to use it under such circumstances and witli such sufficient precaution that the reasonable probability of error should be avoided, notwithstanding the want of care and caution which is so commonly exhibited in the course of human affairs." 

This language of O'HAGAN, L. J., has been quoted with approval by the courts of highest authority both in England and America, and has been lately adopted by this court in Williams v. Brooks, supra. The defendants appealed, and in the Court of Appeal Cotton, L. J., said (13 Ch. Div., 457), " Then we come to the question, is the use of this ticket, on goods exported by the defendants, calculated to lead to their goods being mistaken for those of the plaintiffs, or I may add to lead to their goods being sold under the name under which the plaintiffs' goods had frequently been sold, because that is really the same thimg ? * * * The conclusion at which I have arrived is this, that the defendants either originally adopted that ticket with knowledge of the'facts, from which the intention to mislead must be imputed to them, or at all. events, if that is not so, that they persisted in the desire to continue to use that ticket when they did know the facts from which it was probable that the ticket, if used, would
deceive. 

Therefore, in my opinion, the judgment of Mr.
Justice Fey is right, and must be affirmed." On subsequent
appeal to the House of Lords, Watson,L. J.,said: "Apart
from all questions ns to bona fides or mala fides of the appel-
lants, I am disposed to hold that the circumstances to which
I adverted afford sufficient ground for an injunction against
the appellants. When a prominent and substantial part of
a long and well-known trade-mark, denoting the manufac-
ture of a particular firm, appears as the prominent and sub-
stantial part of the new trade-mark of a rival, it seems rea-
sonable to anticipate that the goods of the latter may be mis-
taken for and sold as the manufacture of the firm to which
the other trade-mark belongs." L. R., 7 App. Cas., 231. In
the case of Seixo v. Provezende, L. R., 1 Ch., 192, the plain-
tiff and defendant used marks the similarity of which con-
sisted solely in the use of the word Seixo, which was the
name of the plaintiff's vineyard, and by which the defendants
claimed that their vineyard was also called. But Lord
Chancellor Cranworth said that, even assuming that to be
true, it did not justify the defendants in adopting a device
or brand, the probable effect of which was to mislead the
public, and added: " I do not consider actual physical re-
semblance to be the sole question for consideration. If the
goods of a manufacturer have, from the mark or device he
has used, become known in the market by a particular name,
I think that the adoption by a rival trader of any mark which
will cause his goods to bear the same name in the market
may be as much a violation of the rights of that rival as the
actual copy of his device." 

Here the defendants, knowing
the plaintiff's goods to have been distinguished for years as " Wm. Rogers goods," and knowing that the stamp proposed to be used would cause their goods to be known in the mar- ket by the same name, contracted with a Wm. Rogers, for the purpose of availing themselves of the name Win. Rogers as a pretended trade-mark upon a portion of their flat ware. Their goods have become known as " Wm. Rogers goods," and " the effect of the use of his name was soon manifest in the increased and increasing sale of their goods."

Fourth. The defendant's infringement is not to be justified or excused by reason of the contract between the defendant and William Rogers. Let us state the defendant's claim under this head as it really is when stripped of its dress and viewed in its nakedness. It is this: The plaintiff alleges and proves that the defendant has so imitated the plaintiffs trade-mark that goods bearing the defendant's simulated stamp will be readily taken by some purchasers who wish to buy the plaintiffs goods. 

The defendant replies that he has a right to so imitate the plaintiff's trademark because he has hired William Rogers, the son of his father, who possesses in a greater or less degree the skill of his father, to supervise his, the defendant's, manufacture, and he produces the deceptive imitation only by putting on his, the defendant's, goods the name of the man he has employed to supervise. Or the proposition may be concisely stated thus : If one has a trade-mark of which a personal name forms a part, his rival in business may pirate that trade-mark, provided he employs in his factory a superintendent who happens to possess the same name. The statement of the claim is its sufficient answer. 

No attendant circumstances can help out its inherent absurdity. It is the goods of Simpson, Hall, Miller & Co. that bear this deceptive imitation. They are in no sense the goods of William Rogers. He has no interest in them, direct or contingent. 

He neither makes nor sells them ; he is an overseer, a supervisor; that and nothing more. If a man uses his own name as a stamp upon his own goods in a legitimate business way with no extrinsic deception it may be the doctrine of this court in Rogers • Bro. v. Rogers that he cannot be enjoined, though his goods are thereby passed as the goods of another; but it does not follow that a manufacturer may put the name of another on his goods and thus pass them as the goods of some one else in the market. Under no imaginable circumstances will a defendant be permitted thus to use another name as a stamp. 

The limit in this direction is, certainly reached in the doctrine that a man may use his' own name hi his own business, whatever the result may be, so long as he intends no fraud. There is a shoreless and bottomless pit between that statement and the claim that a man may use another's name in his own business, or that a man may use his own name in another's business, no matter what the results may be. It has sometimes been argued that Meriden Britannia Co. v. Parker, 39 Conn., 450, justifies the theory that there can be a trade-mark the title to Avhich depends upon supervision. No such doctrine is to be found in that or any other case. The reference to supervision is only to answer the defendant's claim that when the Meriden Britannia Company said to the public that the goods stamped " 1847 Rogers Bros. Al " were manufactured by Rogers Bros., it was not such a material misrepresentation as disentitled the plaintiff to relief, because in fact and in truth the Rogers Bros., or some of them, supervised the manufacture of the goods. To assume that supervision may be the foundation of title to a trade-mark, and to attempt to jump from that to the assumption that supervision may be a justification of infringement, requires a wonderful amount of confidence. Trade-marks do not pass by inheritance. If they did, they would not pass to the eldest son alone.

William Rogers inherited no trade-mark from his father. He cannot sell, for he does not own, his father's reputation; for the same reason, if for no other, he can not use or sell his father's name. If he has skill in the business which his father pursued, that skill may justly be the ground of compensation by his employer, but cannot be used by his employer or by himself to deceive others. The question is not whether, there being no other and prior trade-mark containing the words " Wm. Rogers " in the field, Simpson, Hall, Miller & Co. might under its contract with William Rogers put his name on its goods and thus acquire a good trade-mark as against new comers. Probably under the authority of Meriden Britannia Co. v. Parker it could, but the question is whether, there being such prior trade-mark in the field, it can under its contract with William Rogers infringe such prior trade-mark, and that case is authority in point that it cannot. According to that case, though Parker was enjoined at the instance of the Meriden Britannia Company, the latter corporation could have been enjoined at the instance of Rogers & Bro. of Waterbury, prior occupants of the field.

fifth. The right of the plaintiff, as against this defendant, is perfect as to both of its trade-marks; but if William Rogers, Jr., were himself defendant, he would, upon the facts found, be estopped to deny the exclusive right of the plaintiff to the trade-mark " Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co." This was the name of the original copartnership, taken by contract with Wm. Rogers, Sr., and has been used by the copartnership and the plaintiff, without question or objection from either father or son, ever since its adoption in 1867. It is found that Rogers has several times complained of the use by the plaintiff of the stamp Wm. Rogers & Son, claiming it to be his personal mark, but no complaint is found because of the use of " Wm. Rogers Mfg. Co." This is the trade-mark which gave name to the goods as " Wm. Rogers goods." Had they been called after the other they would have been "Wm. Rogers & Son" goods. Can there be upon the facts any doubt that William Rogers himself would, if personally defendant, be estopped to deny the exclusive right of the plaintiffs to the use of this mark ?

0. R. Ingersoll and O. E. Mitchell, for the defendant.

1. William Rogers, as a manufacturer of plated-ware, would have the right to use his own name as his trade-mark, or as a part of his trade-mark, whatever use had been made of the same name by any other manufacturer, and it is not necessary for us to deny the right of the plaintiff to the use of the trade-mark which it claims. The fact that two men bearing the same name may each have a high and valuable reputation in the same art, and may each give his name to the goods of his production, and that more or less inconvenience may result from the identity of such names, is no reason for requiring one of them to withdraw from the business of such art or trade, or to give up the valuable' reputation to which he is entitled, by adopting some other name by which he will lose his personal significance. And this where both the men are in full life and active business. With much less reason can this plaintiff avail itself of the reputation of the William Rogers, the father, who died in 1873, to prevent William Rogers, the son, enjoying the reputation which he has largely made for himself since the death of his father. In any case, the inconvenience resulting from the mere identity of business names, if it be proved (which in the present case we deny), is damnum absque injuria. And this, too, has been settled by this court in Rogers & Brother v. Rogers, 53 Conn., 121. It also necessarily resulted from the decision of this court in Meriden Britannia Co, v. Parker, 39 Conn., 450, where the stamps of William, Asa and Simeon Rogers, individually and collectively, were held to be rightfully used, although concurrently, and under circumstances causing them easily to be confounded one with another.

Read the Rest Here.