1956 Serial Toggle Nickel Plated

[GlennConti]

Healthy skepticism is the key to finding the truth.

In one of my several old lines of work, we called that a "hung jury." Until we see more evidence, I'd say we let the ol' horse lie dead for a while and let the battle of assumptions abate.

How 'bout it?

Sounds good.

 

[TexLaw]

Excellent!

To be continued (preferably over a beer or few).

 

[Copierguy]

CAP, are you sure that is the same razor.... Fantastic job there CAP. First rate start to finish and WOW what a finish!!

 

[Captain Murphy]

Excellent!

To be continued (preferably over a beer or few).

I snapped open a Yuengling after finishing this one

CAP, are you sure that is the same razor.... Fantastic job there CAP. First rate start to finish and WOW what a finish!!

Well I send all my work to Razor Emporium so it's hard to say

 

[imatabor]

Well I send all my work to Razor Emporium so it's hard to say

 

[nuclearblast]

View attachment 548428

 

[imatabor]

View attachment 548428

 

[KQY61]

Hi,

The Captain has really earned his stripes. Provided he is a Captain of the naval variety. The other Captain Murphy was of the Air Force variety so would have been a Lieutenant in the Navy....

Of course this job ought to warrant a promotion regardless!

St

 

[Captain Murphy]

Hi,

The Captain has really earned his stripes. Provided he is a Captain of the naval variety. The other Captain Murphy was of the Air Force variety so would have been a Lieutenant in the Navy....

Of course this job ought to warrant a promotion regardless!

St

IIRC, Tony (August West) promoted me to admiral awhile ago....still waiting on paperwork from the MODS

 

[Copierguy]

To those that suggest that the base plates could just be left overs from Q3 that they found laying around, then why is the top side blank?
On Super Speeds or Presidents etc. the top side would say "PAT NOS ON PKG."

I suspect that they modified production with not only the enlarged holes, but skipping the proclamation of patent numbers on package because they would be located on the back of the instructions.

I know this does not help define the "when" factor but felt this is an interesting point.

Also I see the June 1956 date on the card being referenced as a sold date.
The card actually says "DATE OF PURCHASE (OR RECEIPT) OF RAZOR"
In theory, this razor could have been made and purchased in 1955, but not given as a gift till June 11th 1956.

I'm not sure if the date codes are manufacturing dates or release dates or how much flex there is.
Here cutting_edge shows an ad from The New Yorker, December 14, 1957 that most likely was a D-1.

Different subject but did you notice that in the graphics they drew the correct 1-9 toggle case, razor head, dial and toggle lever asm.
But in the last image about the "Adjusting Collar" they use the Serial Number head.

 

[KQY61]

Hi,

To use existing plates, they would have had to grab them prior to attaching a handle. The bottom stamp would have to occur prior to attaching the handle as well. The top stamping could occur after handle attachment. If stamping the top with handle, a jig would have to be used. I doubt a toggle handle would fit in a SS jig.

Stan

 

[LONG BEACH]

Great Job Cap! I knew it would be a night and day turn around. Not to jump out of the last posts on the wide array of speculation and also sorry i fell out of the loop here, as our family just celebrated a late Christmas due to other matters. Which also yielded a awesome toggle story from a relative whom i never met till this last week. With that aside,and another post coming soon....

Cap, i noticed this as i have noticed a few other things as we have gone along here, but with the 2 toggles you have taken apart i see the slot within the toggle is way different on the serial toggle vs the toggle on a D-1/F-4. What are your thoughts on the design change as i also see a round bottom to the handle where the toggle goes flush with the handle.I can tell from other serial toggle owners that the serial toggle is a much different animal. What is your over all assessment of the 2 types of toggles? Lb

 

[LONG BEACH]

To those that suggest that the base plates could just be left overs from Q3 that they found laying around, then why is the top side blank?
On Super Speeds or Presidents etc. the top side would say "PAT NOS ON PKG."

I suspect that they modified production with not only the enlarged holes, but skipping the proclamation of patent numbers on package because they would be located on the back of the instructions.

I know this does not help define the "when" factor but felt this is an interesting point.

Also I see the June 1956 date on the card being referenced as a sold date.
The card actually says "DATE OF PURCHASE (OR RECEIPT) OF RAZOR"
In theory, this razor could have been made and purchased in 1955, but not given as a gift till June 11th 1956.

I'm not sure if the date codes are manufacturing dates or release dates or how much flex there is.
Here cutting_edge shows an ad from The New Yorker, December 14, 1957 that most likely was a D-1.

Different subject but did you notice that in the graphics they drew the correct 1-9 toggle case, razor head, dial and toggle lever asm.
But in the last image about the "Adjusting Collar" they use the Serial Number head.

Copier Guy thought of this same thing last night in regards to Gillette holiday ad and there dates. Dug these up as well. Also it seems as though the pics from the toggle ad vary again from the pic within your rare instruction booklet of the serial toggle and the pics in the D-1/F-4 Toggle instruction booklet pics! Interesting indeed!! This just gets to me amazing what is being turned up here. Someone should post the 2 instruction booklets side by side..
Looks like one of these ran in the Esquire Dec of 57 which adds another twist to things here!

 

[GlennConti]

Usually you have to book large magazines ad space months in advance. They could have planned for a Dec. release of the D-1/F-4 toggle type but manufacturing delays caused them to miss the release. I don't think razors stamped D-1 were ever sold in Dec. of 1957. And I don't think there are any undiscovered and missing "C" date code toggle razors. Further, I don't think the A-3 toggles were sold in Dec of 1957. I don't think any toggles were sold in Dec of 1957. It was just a missed product launch.

 

[GlennConti]

Here is a blow up of the photo in the 1957 ad. I think it clearly shows an A-3 adjuster mechanism. To me this means they didn't have any actual razors produced in time for the advertising artwork. (The A-3 shown was a left over from the 1955 production run)

 

[GlennConti]

In theory, this razor could have been made and purchased in 1955, but not given as a gift till June 11th 1956.

Tom, I prefer the theory that this razor (#1230) was made in 1955 but sat on the shelf of some back water drug store in Wisconsin until it was purchased in June of 1956.

 

[mblakele]

But if Gillette was test marketing an unannounced product, marked with serial numbers, would they have left anything behind after the test period?

Maybe 11 June 1956 was the purchase date after all. That year Fathers Day fell on 17 June, and Fathers Day was a big deal for Gillette sales. A 1956 article in the NARD journal (vol. 78, p29) reported that Vincent C. Ziegler, vice president of the Gillette Safety Razor Company, emphasized in a recent statement: "The total of Father's Day merchandise sold in 1955 was $275,000,000, an increase of $25,000,000 over the previous year." That sounds to me like a good time to test-market a new high-end razor: if it will sell at all, it should sell on Fathers Day — or Christmas, of course.

A volume of Library of Congress Commercial Prints and Labels suggests that they did some promotion in 1958 too: "Announcing the revolutionary, new Gillette adjustable razor. Father's Day. (In Erie Times-News, June 1, 1958, comics, p. 3)". I think that was recorded with the LoC to register use of the advertising slogan. Interesting to see placement next to the comics, where kids would see it. Also they were still calling it "new", which may or may not add to the evidence around Christmas 1957.

 

[GlennConti]

But if Gillette was test marketing an unannounced product, marked with serial numbers, would they have left anything behind after the test period?

Either the A-3 was left behind (retained by Gillette) or an old photograph was used for the Dec. 1957 Ad artwork is my guess.

Maybe 11 June 1956 was the purchase date after all. That year Fathers Day fell on 17 June, and Fathers Day was a big deal for Gillette sales.

I agree the A-3 was sold on 11 June 1956 and it was sold quite possibly as a Father's Day gift, but it still could have been sitting on the shelf at the drug store since Christmas 1955.

Also they were still calling it "new", which may or may not add to the evidence around Christmas 1957.

It used to be the joke that everything was always "new" or "new and improved". IMHO that was just a marketing gimick that had no basis in whether or not the product was actually a new product. The D-1 was a new and improved version of the A-3.

 

[mblakele]

Either the A-3 was left behind (retained by Gillette) or an old photograph was used for the Dec. 1957 Ad artwork is my guess.

I agree the A-3 was sold on 11 June 1956 and it was sold quite possibly as a Father's Day gift, but it still could have been sitting on the shelf at the drug store since Christmas 1955.

Sorry, I did not mean to say anything about the artwork. I was commenting on the presumed test marketing in 1955 or 1956 that included the sale of #1230 in Wisconsin.

You see, if I wanted to test market a new razor design I would do so primarily to gather data. So I would not simply ship razors to select stores and let them go on shelves. Instead I would send a pair of Gillette employees and a batch of razors to each location. Those employees would be responsible for handling the razors and recording data on customer reactions and sales. They would come back with the data and any unsold razors.

Of course this is speculative and even if true, a razor or two might have been misplaced. But I hope that clears up what I was trying to say, above.

 

[Captain Murphy]

Great Job Cap! I knew it would be a night and day turn around. Not to jump out of the last posts on the wide array of speculation and also sorry i fell out of the loop here, as our family just celebrated a late Christmas due to other matters. Which also yielded a awesome toggle story from a relative whom i never met till this last week. With that aside,and another post coming soon....

Cap, i noticed this as i have noticed a few other things as we have gone along here, but with the 2 toggles you have taken apart i see the slot within the toggle is way different on the serial toggle vs the toggle on a D-1/F-4. What are your thoughts on the design change as i also see a round bottom to the handle where the toggle goes flush with the handle.I can tell from other serial toggle owners that the serial toggle is a much different animal. What is your over all assessment of the 2 types of toggles? Lb

LB, Thank you Sir

To answer your question on the two toggles, I believe the difference you are noticing is the slot on the 1-5 toggle when compared to the 1-9 model. The 1-5 works in a different fashion compared to the other one. As we all know, the 1-5 model has the indentation on the bottom piece that provides the leverage for the toggle to function. On the 1-9 model, these indentations are on the actual door rod but both function in a similar fashion, that is, to open and close the razor. I think Gillette might have improved this design because the actual toggle part on the 1-5 toggle basically wobbles back and forth when the razor is in its "open" position...perhaps the inventors [Gillette] didn't like this slop in design?

Anyways, The rest of the 1-5 is much different than the 1-9 models, as we can see from the patent drawings