A bizarre and disconcerting thing happened to me last week: my #66 Aristocrat fell apart in my hands! I had just finished shaving and had loosened up the razor to run some warm water around the blade. Suddenly, this precious, shiny object, which, like all of my vintage Gillettes, I had come to think of as a paragon of solidity almost immortality turned into a pathetic, useless pile of metal junk. Very odd!
The only consolation (and its a scant one) is a peek at the anatomy of the #66, which is usually hidden from sight since this is one of the Aristocrats that does not have an exposed assembly screw.
As with all TTO razors, turning the knob raises and lowers the upper part of the head, which forces the doors to open and close. British Gillettes differ from American ones in that the knob travels up and down the handle, and it does so as a left-handed screw. The photos show how this is implemented. The motion is transmitted via two threaded pieces, the smaller (right-handed, with a pitch of 31 threads per inch) screws into the larger one (which is one with the knob and screws into the body of the handle with a left-handed motion, 24 threads per inch). In this configuration, the motions of the two screws combine. Thus, the total travel of 0.22 inches is achieved with just a little over three full turns of the knob. The choice of a left-handed motion for the knob appears to be based on esthetic reasons (the gap between knob and handle is visible when the razor is closed). They could have made the other choice, but then the inner thread would need to be left-handed. In the American system, tightening the doors is naturally linked to a clockwise motion of the knob, requiring a single right-handed thread inside.
(Should I repeat that?)
So what went wrong with my #66? Well, the top threaded pin has to be connected to the moving part of the head (the fixed part is crimped to the handle). This is done with a couple of rivets (Im not 100% sure about this, but I tried to show it on the photo). The pin sheared at the lower rivet. This is clearly the weak point of the whole design, for two reasons: it looks like pin and rivet were stamped during assembly (this putting stress into the metal), plus the two rivets are in series which is dumb because it does not make the structure stronger than a single rivet. (Im no engineer, so I could be wrong about that last point.) Anyway, seems to me that a single pin would have been a better fastening method. There would be no need for crimping or threading, since the whole assembly is inside the handle, with no place to go for the hypothetical pin. Too late now.
All of the innards of the #66 are shiny silver, but I dug into the broken pin with a Swiss file to reveal a gold/yellow sheen. So I conclude that its plated brass.
I have thought about ways of fixing my razor but, short of exotic welding schemes, I don t think it can be done. Anybody got some ideas?
The only consolation (and its a scant one) is a peek at the anatomy of the #66, which is usually hidden from sight since this is one of the Aristocrats that does not have an exposed assembly screw.
As with all TTO razors, turning the knob raises and lowers the upper part of the head, which forces the doors to open and close. British Gillettes differ from American ones in that the knob travels up and down the handle, and it does so as a left-handed screw. The photos show how this is implemented. The motion is transmitted via two threaded pieces, the smaller (right-handed, with a pitch of 31 threads per inch) screws into the larger one (which is one with the knob and screws into the body of the handle with a left-handed motion, 24 threads per inch). In this configuration, the motions of the two screws combine. Thus, the total travel of 0.22 inches is achieved with just a little over three full turns of the knob. The choice of a left-handed motion for the knob appears to be based on esthetic reasons (the gap between knob and handle is visible when the razor is closed). They could have made the other choice, but then the inner thread would need to be left-handed. In the American system, tightening the doors is naturally linked to a clockwise motion of the knob, requiring a single right-handed thread inside.
(Should I repeat that?)
So what went wrong with my #66? Well, the top threaded pin has to be connected to the moving part of the head (the fixed part is crimped to the handle). This is done with a couple of rivets (Im not 100% sure about this, but I tried to show it on the photo). The pin sheared at the lower rivet. This is clearly the weak point of the whole design, for two reasons: it looks like pin and rivet were stamped during assembly (this putting stress into the metal), plus the two rivets are in series which is dumb because it does not make the structure stronger than a single rivet. (Im no engineer, so I could be wrong about that last point.) Anyway, seems to me that a single pin would have been a better fastening method. There would be no need for crimping or threading, since the whole assembly is inside the handle, with no place to go for the hypothetical pin. Too late now.
All of the innards of the #66 are shiny silver, but I dug into the broken pin with a Swiss file to reveal a gold/yellow sheen. So I conclude that its plated brass.
I have thought about ways of fixing my razor but, short of exotic welding schemes, I don t think it can be done. Anybody got some ideas?
