Incorrect silver pattern description in web page

[newking]

The web page "Gorham Flatware Patterns ~ Online Encyclopedia of Silver Marks, Hallmarks & Makers' Marks" at <http://www.925-1000.com/patterns_Gorham.html> shows a photo of Gorham's King George pattern, patented 1894, incorrectly described as Gorham's New Queens pattern (NQ photo shown below. This pattern is listed in Turner's book as patented c.1895, but all pieces I've seen & have are marked "pat.1899"). My question is, how can this web page be corrected?
.

[Traintime]

All the Gorham Sterling King patterns including I, II, III & George (with 1909 catalog pages) and the dates they included: https://www.sterlingflatwarefashions.co ... ham11.html

[dragonflywink]

Hi - welcome to the forums. Can only say that I agree that the pattern shown as 'New Queens' is actually 'King George'. Carpenter and the JCK Index also show 'New Queens' as introduced in 1895...

~Cheryl

[Traintime]

Reviving this dead horse with new images. This butter sample has been overstamped “J.E.C &Co.” for Caldwell of Philadelphia. It appears the the Gorham Lion/Anchor/Gee before STERLING has been squashed along with the center of the date numbers below “PAT” (Patent abbreviation). It actually can be louped enough to make all this out including the numbers 9 & 5 for “95” (ie 1895). So, in this case at least, the claim seems to be that King George received the design patent in 1895, unless they are placing the protection on something other than the pattern? [Unfortunately, the images won’t allow the viewer to see what is visible to the eye with a magnifier. But the blurbs might show.]

[Traintime]

From the 1906 advert posted by Trev on this page, it would appear Caldwell was just calling it Kings Pattern regardless of the full Gorham identification: https://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopi ... a&start=80