A pair of Canadian Old Type smooth ball ends (lots of pics)

[Sled Dog]

Picked up these Gillette Canadian Old Type's with the smooth ball ends.
Taking a guess, I think they would date to the late teens.

Bottom of the cases

Serial number 486987 in the thatched pocket edition case (from the UK)

Serial number 502259 in the plain case (from France)

502259 came from France and included this cool shim

Couple of close ups

These two on the left, with my other smooth ball, serial number PC07509 on the right

Thanks for looking
Kevin

 

[bakerbarber]

You've rounded errr cornered the market!

 

[Dalejr]

Lucky, local scores?

 

[Sled Dog]

Lucky, local scores?

The latest two were eBay scores (UK and France), the first one I found was a local find (PC07509)

 

[ERVARGASNY]

Nice Sets, I would say these cases were more in the Late 20's Early 30's if these cases we made up that far? They have the Push Button Latch as appose to the clasp Latch. But i could be wrong? Anyone else want to chime in on this?

 

[FL shaver]

Gorgeous razors. I can't see a defect in any of the handles. Congrats!

 

[celestino]

Very lovely razors! Congratulations.

 

[huck1680]

Verra nice indeed!

 

[MacDaddy]

Nice little collection you've got going there. I've got a bit of a thing for these thin-handled ball-end models, too.

Date-wise, I would put the PC-serialed one you have somewhere around 1909-10. I'm pretty sure that the "PC" serials are the earliest ones out of Gillette Canada on these Pocket Editions, and we know that they were fulfilling orders of Pocket Editions as early as that, which matches up with the timeline for that same style of case from the Boston plant. I would guess that the one in the Basket pattern, four-rivet case was from closer to the middle of the decade, say 1914 give or take.

The Plain pattern, no-rivet case is tougher to pin down. If we assume that the Canadian serial numbers were continuous you'd think that it was from not long after the other one (486987 to 502259); however, I have some examples that would appear to throw a monkey wrench in the "continuous series" notion. I have a Floral pattern, no-rivet case like your plain one, but with a razor that's numbered 404543 -- which would line up even before your four-rivet model. And then there's this Shell pattern, two-rivet cased one that's numbered 153084.

Either Gillette Canada was doing some bizarre case experimentation, or (and this seems more likely) they restarted their numbering series at some point. If we assume that the latter is true, then I would think that the no-rivet cases were probably towards the very end of the decade or possibly into the very beginning of the '20s. It's the same style closure that Gillette used on the lower cost Pocket Editions into the '20s after they rolled out the New Improved models.

 

[alex2363]

Nice little collection you've got going there. I've got a bit of a thing for these thin-handled ball-end models, too.

Date-wise, I would put the PC-serialed one you have somewhere around 1909-10. I'm pretty sure that the "PC" serials are the earliest ones out of Gillette Canada on these Pocket Editions, and we know that they were fulfilling orders of Pocket Editions as early as that, which matches up with the timeline for that same style of case from the Boston plant. I would guess that the one in the Basket pattern, four-rivet case was from closer to the middle of the decade, say 1914 give or take.

The Plain pattern, no-rivet case is tougher to pin down. If we assume that the Canadian serial numbers were continuous you'd think that it was from not long after the other one (486987 to 502259); however, I have some examples that would appear to throw a monkey wrench in the "continuous series" notion. I have a Floral pattern, no-rivet case like your plain one, but with a razor that's numbered 404543 -- which would line up even before your four-rivet model. And then there's this Shell pattern, two-rivet cased one that's numbered 153084.

Either Gillette Canada was doing some bizarre case experimentation, or (and this seems more likely) they restarted their numbering series at some point. If we assume that the latter is true, then I would think that the no-rivet cases were probably towards the very end of the decade or possibly into the very beginning of the '20s. It's the same style closure that Gillette used on the lower cost Pocket Editions into the '20s after they rolled out the New Improved models.

Wouldn't the rivets be more of a functional thing? Why would they omit it in the name of cost savings?

 

[MacDaddy]

Wouldn't the rivets be more of a functional thing? Why would they omit it in the name of cost savings?

I think cost savings is exactly why they would have been looking to simplify things. If they could make a closure that was cheaper and faster to make, and still did the job of holding the case closed well enough why wouldn't they have done it?

The jump from the four-rivet design to the two-rivet one was where any weakness to the closure was introduced. The latch piece went from being a strip of metal that was riveted on both ends to a piece that was only tacked on one end and loose on other. That makes the latch weaker and entirely dependent on the springiness of the metal to be able to catch the lid. I've seen more failures in these style latches, but I'm sure that at the time they weren't thinking about anything like the thing lasting this long. So it was probably a case of "good enough."

The change from the two-rivet to no-rivet style really just changes the catch in the lid so that there isn't a separate piece of metal that's riveted in. Instead, a hole punched in the lid functions as the catch -- simpler and really just as functional.

The later metal case closures changed the latch portion to be more of a tongue on the case bottom, which was more resilient than the tacked-in spring strip.

 

[Sled Dog]

Thanks for the info on dating these razors, appreciate it!!!

 

[alex2363]

I think cost savings is exactly why they would have been looking to simplify things. If they could make a closure that was cheaper and faster to make, and still did the job of holding the case closed well enough why wouldn't they have done it?

The jump from the four-rivet design to the two-rivet one was where any weakness to the closure was introduced. The latch piece went from being a strip of metal that was riveted on both ends to a piece that was only tacked on one end and loose on other. That makes the latch weaker and entirely dependent on the springiness of the metal to be able to catch the lid. I've seen more failures in these style latches, but I'm sure that at the time they weren't thinking about anything like the thing lasting this long. So it was probably a case of "good enough."

The change from the two-rivet to no-rivet style really just changes the catch in the lid so that there isn't a separate piece of metal that's riveted in. Instead, a hole punched in the lid functions as the catch -- simpler and really just as functional.

The later metal case closures changed the latch portion to be more of a tongue on the case bottom, which was more resilient than the tacked-in spring strip.

I see, thanks for the insight your views are very much appreciated.

Thanks for the info on dating these razors, appreciate it!!!

Thank you for posting them here.