Patent Sasieni Date Range?

[milk]

Hi Folks! I got this handsome Sasieni Fantail 93 from Reborn. The stamps are hard to show but there’s a football shaped “Made in London” on the left side where the bowl meets the shank and then Sasieni over Fantail. On the right there’s London Made and the shape # 93 followed by “PATD-170067”. I’m wondering if anyone knows if the patent number helps to date this pipe and, if so, to what date range the pipe might be traced.

 

[OzPiper]

Current EBay listing (deadmanspipes): Sasieni rusticated billiard shape 11 with fantail PATD-170067
"Patent applied for in November 1952 and granted July 1953"
So post- July 1953

 

[milk]

Current EBay listing (deadmanspipes): Sasieni rusticated billiard shape 11 with fantail PATD-170067
"Patent applied for in November 1952 and granted July 1953"
So post- July 1953

Thanks. I wonder how long they stamped the patent # on these pipes. I see a claim on an eBay description that the use of this stamp was discontinued in 1957 but I’m not seeing anywhere on the internet that confirms this.

 

[ssjones]

Below is Steve's article on the Fantail you bought from him. He says the pipe is from the post-Patent era, so from 1946 to 1979 (I call the Family Era)

Restoring a Sasieni Fantail 93 Stack

Blog by Steve Laug The pipe was purchased on 02/02/22 from an online auction from a seller in Colts Neck, New Jersey, USA. It is a smooth finished Sasieni Stack with a unique shape and smooth finis…

rebornpipes.com

 

[milk]

Below is Steve's article on the Fantail you bought from him. He says the pipe is from the post-Patent era, so from 1946 to 1979 (I call the Family Era)

Restoring a Sasieni Fantail 93 Stack

Blog by Steve Laug The pipe was purchased on 02/02/22 from an online auction from a seller in Colts Neck, New Jersey, USA. It is a smooth finished Sasieni Stack with a unique shape and smooth finis…

rebornpipes.com

Yes. I read that. But others claim it’s between ‘53 and 57. Several others claim that. Actually, I see four other sellers, not only eBay, saying that. I wonder where they’re getting that from. Maybe each other. Could be just a rumor.

 

[ssjones]

Yes. I read that. But others claim it’s between ‘53 and 57. Several others claim that. Actually, I see four other sellers, not only eBay, saying that. I wonder where they’re getting that from. Maybe each other. Could be just a rumor.

Steve is usually pretty thorough in his research. The Sasieni script logo is the key indicator, to me of post 1946. I don't know it can be narrowed down to a tighter time frame as above. Ebay re-sellers are notoriously liberal with dating details. I would only trust a few. The author of the Pipepedia article, for one, Doug Valitchka.

 

[ssjones]

I see what you might have read:

SASIENI Fantail 55 Patent D-170067 - Very Keen on Pipes

England, 1950s “Be it known that I, Abraham A. Sasieni, a citizen of Great Britain, …, have invented a new, original, and ornamental Design for a Pipe Stem…” Gentleman whos patent application we quote above was more known as Alfred … Continued

vkpipes.com

I think we're familiar with this UK reseller and I believe he has credibility a well.

 

[milk]

I see what you might have read:

SASIENI Fantail 55 Patent D-170067 - Very Keen on Pipes

England, 1950s “Be it known that I, Abraham A. Sasieni, a citizen of Great Britain, …, have invented a new, original, and ornamental Design for a Pipe Stem…” Gentleman whos patent application we quote above was more known as Alfred … Continued

vkpipes.com

I think we're familiar with this UK reseller and I believe he has credibility a well.

Right. That’s one of the ones I noticed that place it between ‘53 and ‘57. I’ve bought from them before - incidentally. But I don’t know why they think so. I think Steve didn’t find anything to back but this claim - nor have I. It’s a beauty of a pipe anyway. And thanks for your replies!

 

[jguss]

As far as easily proven goes the pipe can’t have been made before the summer of 1953 since the patent was dated July 21st of that year. Note it was a design, not utility patent, and dealt solely with the appearance of the stem (see https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/91/86/74/be16ed194bceb1/USD170067.pdf).

At that time design patent protection lasted 14 years, so in theory the number could have legally been stamped on pipes made until July of 1967. The seller states that Sasieni stop stamping patent numbers in the late 1950s. What his authority is for that I don’t know; still less do I know the authority’s authority.

 

[milk]

As far as easily proven goes the pipe can’t have been made before the summer of 1953 since the patent was dated July 21st of that year. Note it was a design, not utility patent, and dealt solely with the appearance of the stem (see https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/91/86/74/be16ed194bceb1/USD170067.pdf).

At that time design patent protection lasted 14 years, so in theory the number could have legally been stamped on pipes made until July of 1967. The seller states that Sasieni stop stamping patent numbers in the late 1950s. What his authority is for that I don’t know; still less do I know the authority’s authority.

This is helpful.

 

[jguss]

I would add the following thoughts. First utility patent (and design) protection was finite, and keyed to the date the patent (or design registration) was issued. Moreover how long the protection lasted varied by country and by era (in other words revisions of intellectual property law changed the protections at various points; e.g. how long it lasted and whether renewals were allowed). Finally you were expected to mark your product or packaging with the patent number if you wanted to assert your rights; likewise when those rights lapsed you were expected to stop. In the pipe world that suggests (with certain sloppiness around the edges) that the presence of a utility patent, design patent (in the US) or a design reg (in the UK) number establishes that the object must obviously have been made and sold after the number was granted. The absence of the number suggests (although this is where the sloppinness comes in) that the object was made and sold after the IP protection had ended.

In the case of Sasieni we know that the various patents Joel and his son Alfred applied for were granted at various times over several decades, and would obviously have differing expiration dates at various times over a number of years. So if Sasieni ever decided to stop stamping patent numbers as a matter of policy (as opposed to legal requirement) it suggests that some patents still in force at that point in time were effectively being abandoned. An odd, but not impossible, step, but one I'd like to see some proof of before I believed it.

Occam's razor suggests that the absence of a patent or design number previously in use generally means either a) the term of protection had expired, or b) the thing that was protected (whether a stinger or a stem) was no longer being produced.

Of course with pipes difficult to date it's a challenge to prove all this one way or the other, but my personal default is to assume that manufacturers were rational (i.e. the affirmative steps they took were for reasons that seemed good to them), and they generally followed the law (especially when violation would be glaringly public). Having said all that I've been wrong before and would appreciate knowing what evidence, if any, supports a mass simultaneous cessation of patent stamping by Sasieni.

 

[ssjones]

All that is logical Jon, thanks for clarifying.
I don't have catalog scans in front of me, but I don't recall seeing detail like a Patent Numbers shown on shape examples. The Fantail line would have received even less detail than the premium Four Dot shapes.

 

[jguss]

All that is logical Jon, thanks for clarifying.
I don't have catalog scans in front of me, but I don't recall seeing detail like a Patent Numbers shown on shape examples. The Fantail line would have received even less detail than the premium Four Dot shapes.

Very good point Al. I guess the approach is to a) date the catalog (sometimes easy, sometimes very much not), b) know the expiration dates (including renewals if any) of various protected innovations, c) see which patent or design numbers are not shown in the illustrations when they "should" be there, i.e. on items which were at the time of the catalog still protected.

I will say that I have seen a large number of old catalogs and inferring nomenclature from the illustrations is a dicey business. I do it anyway because it's often the only game in town, but take it with a grain of salt for a few reasons. First, especially in older catalogs what you see is an illustration not a photograph, and as such is often unfaithful to the actual artifact's nomenclature; and second, because of production cost considerations (much higher then than now; we live in a digital age where modifications are easy) I have frequently found that images are simply copied in successive catalogs, which can potentially be misleading.

 

[greeneyes]

It is wise to have a healthy suspicion of the information in Pipedia and to check primary sources where possible. Case in point, while reviewing the Pipedia Sasieni page and its contributions and contributors I came across a Sasieni Friar [1] [2] that had been fitted with a WDC "Yo-Ho .. A Flavor of Rum" rum bottle stinger [3]. While the Sasieni "His Royal Highness" were "Rum Cured", the stinger rum-bottle apparatus nevertheless features very clearly on an advert for the Yo-Ho. This error is also reposted on Rebornpipes [4].

 

[sablebrush52]

Just took a quick glance through some of my old catalogs that are unpacked and none of them sport any information regarding patents or registrations. On the other hand, newspaper adverts often listed patents, so if one were to try to find evidence of a patent or reg being abandoned early, that might be the way to go.
The only hard evidence for using a patent or reg to range date an item is to base it on the actual patent documentation. The rest is just speculation.

 

[jguss]

The only hard evidence for using a patent or reg to range date an item is to base it on the actual patent documentation. The rest is just speculation.

Agreed, without actual data it's just guessing.

Just took a quick glance through some of my old catalogs that are unpacked and none of them sport any information regarding patents or registrations.

Actually I've found that a decent percentage of catalogs either list explicitly or make reference to patents, trademarks, and/or design registrations. And it only takes one to have a terminus a quo for the document. Of course you have to match the reference with the thing it is referring to (i.e. the patent filing, trademark grant, or design registration) to figure out the date.

Here are a few quick examples:

A page from a Oppenheimer/GBD catalog mentioning a patent which proved to have been granted in 1924:



A page from a Loewe catalog referring to a trademark for its Windward model:



Since the actual registration number (512283) isn't shown here it had to be found elsewhere, in this instance in the 1933 edition of the annual Fancy Goods Brand Directory. Although the trademark papers either have not survived or are not digitized, interpolation reveals the number assigned to the Windward must date from April of 1930:



As a final example (I have more from other manufacturers too) here is a page from a circa 1935 Duncan's catalog citing the 1925 patent received by John Louis Duncan:



So while not every catalog mentions patents/trademarks/design registrations the fact is that many do. IP was a point of distinction that manufacturers used to tout their wares, and reference appeared not only on the pipes themselves (a legal necessity) but not infrequently in other marketing collateral.

 

[sablebrush52]

Agreed, without actual data it's just guessing.



Actually I've found that a decent percentage of catalogs either list explicitly or make reference to patents, trademarks, and/or design registrations. And it only takes one to have a terminus a quo for the document. Of course you have to match the reference with the thing it is referring to (i.e. the patent filing, trademark grant, or design registration) to figure out the date.

Here are a few quick examples:

A page from a Oppenheimer/GBD catalog mentioning a patent which proved to have been granted in 1924:

View attachment 245049

A page from a Loewe catalog referring to a trademark for its Windward model:

View attachment 245051

Since the actual registration number (512283) isn't shown here it had to be found elsewhere, in this instance in the 1933 edition of the annual Fancy Goods Brand Directory. Although the trademark papers either have not survived or are not digitized, interpolation reveals the number assigned to the Windward must date from April of 1930:

View attachment 245052

As a final example (I have more from other manufacturers too) here is a page from a circa 1935 Duncan's catalog citing the 1925 patent received by John Louis Duncan:

View attachment 245068

So while not every catalog mentions patents/trademarks/design registrations the fact is that many do. IP was a point of distinction that manufacturers used to tout their wares, and reference appeared not only on the pipes themselves (a legal necessity) but not infrequently in other marketing collateral.

I'll need to look at those a bit closer. I was just looking at the shape pages, not really reading the articles.

 

[jguss]

I was just looking at the shape pages, not really reading the articles.

I did the same thing with Playboy 50 years ago.