#77 / #88 questions.

[ajc347]

Another #77 / #88 razor arrived in the post yesterday.


There was a lot of tarnish on the head when I received the razor (a bit like in this Mr Razor photo but 10 times worse: http://www.mr-razor.com/Rasierer/The N... No4.JPG ), and I thought that things didn't look too promising.


A quick polish with some Maas and, as you can see in the photos below, it cleaned up really well.

I do have a couple of questions about it though.


Firstly, for some reason the Gillette logo hasn't been stamped on the top part of the handle (unlike every other #77 / #88 I've seen). I'm not sure if this has any significance or not?


Secondly, the first part of the Pat No. reads 352975/6 whilst other in #77's I've seen
the first part of the Pat No. reads 352975/6/7. Does this mean that the razor I have is an earlier production #77?


I'm aware that Mr Razor's very informative website has a 1933 #77 listed with the first part of the Pat No. reading 352975/6, a 1934 #77 Traveller set with the number listed as 3529756 and a 1934 #88 set with the first part of the Pat No. listed as 352975/6/7, so I'vbe not been able to glean a definitive answer from looking at the examples there.


Any thoughts or ideas relating to the above questions would be most welcome.

 

[MacDaddy]

Firstly, for some reason the Gillette logo hasn't been stamped on the top part of the handle (unlike every other #77 / #88 I've seen). I'm not sure if this has any significance or not?

Secondly, the first part of the Pat No. reads 352975/6 whilst other in #77's I've seen the first part of the Pat No. reads 352975/6/7. Does this mean that the razor I have is an earlier production #77?

I'd have to go looking, but I think I have one that's just as you describe. I don't know that anyone's going to have a real solid answer for you, though. It could be a mistake. It could be an early example. But it could also be a later one. Imagine them looking to streamline production and cutting out the logo impression on the handle since it was already on the guard plate pretty much right next to it. And maybe they got in trouble at some point for referencing patent 352977 because it exclusively covered features of the blade and not the razor so they took it off later impressions. I don't have enough information to say which is more plausible.

 

[ajc347]

Thanks for the reply mate.

I'd never thought in terms of it potentially being a later model; the rationale you've put forward makes absolute sense.

It's a shame that there aren't more production records available - I find the variance in Gillette models to be fascinating as to the why's and wherefore's of production design from within the range available of a specific model type, let alone across a number of different production models.

 

[cernel_joson]

What a beauty. I've never seen the knurling on a 77/88 shine that whitely before. It looks fantastic, almost as good as it ought to shave.

 

[Jake]

A great shaver -- and a beautiful razor. Great score.

 

[ajc347]

Thanks guys.

I've a feeling that if it isn't NOS then it can only have been used once or twice.

Strangely enough the case it came in (whilst being a #77 case) was in very poor condition without any blade holders etc, so I suspect that it may well have had a case transplant at some stage in its life.