BanjoMerlin said:I found some answers...
In ARALAC, INC. v. HAT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, 166 F.2d 286 (3rd Cir. 1948)
ARALAC, Inc was a manufacturer of casein fiber and was trying to get two of Hat Corporation
of America's patents (2,322,254 and 2,322,255) invalidated. These two patents were for a process
of making felt with man-made fibers (2,322,254 with milk casein and 2,322,255 with soy prolon).
In the findings of the court was this (argued on 12/14/1946):
"The complaint avers that plaintiff (ARALAC) for years [note: not for very
many years since the Aralac fiber was only developed just before WWII]
manufactured and sold casein fiber to fur felt hat manufacturers and to
others. Hat Manufacturers use casein fiber as a substitute for a
portion of animal fur in the mixture subjected to the felting
process to make material for fur felt hat bodies and hats.
One of plaintiff's largest customers, John B. Stetson Co., was
charged with infringement. After commencing a declaratory
judgment to question defendant's (HCOA) patent, Stetson discontinued its
suit. Later Stetson, and one other customer, obtained a license
from defendant (HCOA) to use the process covered by its patent."
Both of HCOA's patents were granted on 6/22/1943 -
AFTER Stetson's VITA-FELT trademark was Registered on 12/24/1940.
We know that Stetson was advertising "Vita-Felt" before 6/22/1943.
I'm betting Stetson's first (1940s) Vita-felt process was enough like
HCOA patent #2,322,254 that it would have been found to be an
infringement. I infer this because Stetson started action to invalidate HCOA's
patent but then dropped that action and instead obtained a license to use
the patented process. The license was probably offered at a cost much less
than the legal action would have been.
Other info I found:
"One such fiber was Aralac, developed just before the war by the
American Research Associates and the National Dairy Association.
First manufactured in Italy as Lanital [lana = wool + ital = Italy], later
in this country as Aralac. Name was derived from ARA = American
Research Associates and lac, Latin for milk. Fiber was made from
casein of skim milk similar to wool in chemical nature. It was blended
with rabbit fur in making felt hats and also with wool, mohair, rayon
and cotton in varying proportions for fabrics. Although clothing in this
fiber was available as late as 1947 the impact of manmade fibers
following the war eventually caused the demise of this fiber which
could not compete with low price of new synthetics. Plus when damp,
this fabric smelled like sour milk, causing many consumer complaints!"
I have one of the 1960s "VITA-FELT" (NOT "Vita-Felt process) hats
that is marked "3X Beaver" but doesn't feel like the other 3X Beaver
Stetson hats I have from that period.
So:
Vita-felt process #1 (ca. 1940's) mixed casein and rabbit fur. This version
of Vita-felt was not used by Stetson for very long.
Vita-Felt #2 (ca 1967) may be nothing more than marketing or
may incorporate some synthetic fiber - tough to tell but my hat
does NOT smell like sour milk when it is wet.
Vita-felt process #3 (current) uses 100% wool and most likely incorporates
some sort of new process not related to the 1940's process.
wgiceman said:So, the more recent Vita-Felt hats are a nicer version of a 'wool' felt? Is that the right understanding?
BanjoMerlin said:So:
Vita-felt process #1 (ca. 1940's) mixed casein and rabbit fur. This version
of Vita-felt was not used by Stetson for very long.
BanjoMerlin said:Therefore, Stetson was making felt hats with casein using a process similar, if not identical, to the process patented in #2,322,254. Stetson could not claim those hats were 100% fur felt, nor would they want to advertise that they were made of something OTHER than fur felt, so they used an entirely NEW trademark and never mentioned the actual content of the felt at all.
I know you WANT Vita-felt to be 100% fur felt but that is just not what the historical evidence supports.
jimmy the lid said:BanjoMerlin -- simply repeating your argument emphatically does not make it any more logical. You have no idea -- none -- how Stetson may have been using casein as part of the manufacturing process. Nor have you provided any "evidence" that connects casein and Vita Felt. As framed, your argument is utterly unpersuasive. I don't care if Vita-Felt was made of fur or rubber -- but any conclusions in that regard will have to be based on real evidence and not ill-supported conjecture.
If you subtract all the fireworks, this was a fairly interesting discussion, conjecture and all. I mean, if you can't conject here, where can you conject? No lives are at stake in the Vita-Felt debate. I like to know what some people think might have been the case, and hear counter speculation. Why can't someone just make an argument? If another thinks otherwise, he can counter-argue. Personally, although I like to know facts, I don't care in a hat website what could be proven in court. More facts are better, and that's interesting, but getting to the bottom of what cynical marketing people did in the 1940s may not lend itself to knowing all the last facts of the matter in 2010.MKL said:I looked in the old threads to get an answer for this but did not come up with definite answer. Just what does vita-felt mean? Someone "thought" it meant a mixture. I have a Stetson Deluxe with that name on the lining and the band. Any solid ideas?
Thanks.
Lefty said:No. I'm saying that you have shown no proof of your argument, which is that Vita-Felt is casein. You've linked the facts that (A) casein was used in the making of hats during WWII with (B) vita-felt hats were introduced and made by Stetson during WWII to conclude that (C) vita-felt hats must contain casein. C does not follow from A and B, and you have shown nothing beyond A and B to support C.