www.925-1000.com

I just ran across an interesting patent where the inventor is Ernest W. Campbell but instead of the assignor being Campbell-Metcalf Silver Co it is assigned to Holmes & Edward Silver Company. Bridgeport, CT & Providence, RI are only about 120 miles from one another so it does not seem entirely impossible that Ernest did work for Holmes & Edwards Silver Co.

I was looking for a wheat/sweetgrass with flower pattern for a souvenir spoon when I came across this patent along with four others like it.

https://patents.google.com/patent/USD25 ... +campbell)

A Copy of Campbell-Metcalf Silver Co. also shows Holmes & Edwards founder George C. Edwards as a Formally associated to the company on it's officiall RI Certificate of Incorporation.



I also found an article stating that Providence, RI petitions insolvency and one of the assets were described as Holmes & Edwards Silver Co of Bridgeport, CT.



Any thoughts?

Look again...Holmes & Edwards are listed as a "liability", as they are creditors holding a note against C-M.

A reference posted by Trev on that H&E claim against them: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=36151&p=108063&hil ... lf#p108063

A full text in the J.C. shows Mr. Edwards was related to Director Foote via a marriage, and this played out in the financial relationship extended to C-M. The testimony is laid out over who owed who how much.

Traintime I do see that but the patent shows 12-31-1895 as inventor Ernest W. Campbell assignor Howard & Edwards Silver Co. even thought Campbell-Metcalf Silver Co. was established 7-14-1894.

What are other reasons they wouldn't patent it under the Campbell-Metcalf name? Was this their way of making it even?

My understanding is that the assignee is the entity that has the property right to the patent. Patents are property. The inventor and the assignee may be one in the same but an employee will more than likely assign a patent to a company.

In that JC account, C-M indicated a counter claim of funds owed them by H&E for another (unspecified) account. Maybe they just subcontracted design work for H&E. They could probably design far more than they could use in their own business, and maybe there was some "owed expectations" related to favors done through that in-laws relationship. a little extra income probably did not hurt given the house-building spending spree that Campbell apparently had gone on...one of the assets he had to dump to make good.

I would point out that, for just one example, Rockford Silver Plate patterns come up with multiple maker marks, many of which relate to component companies that end up in International Silver. H&E is one. I don't know if this relationship has to do with subcontracting arrangements or simply licensing of the patented patterns, but there would seem to be cause for H&E to seek designs that were not necessarily in-house work. There was a boom in selling wares in that era and money to be made from cooperative relationships...not to mention all the odd connections found in fraternal organizations, clubs, etc. [As Buckler has previously pointed out in an older thread concerning English work, subcontracting had a long history well before the rise of the corporate era.]