Calling on all the experts on this esteemed forum. What is the diffrence between the #15 and #20 Aristocrats? I know the cases are different as are their weights but is there anything else? They are both listed as being made in 1938. Thanks in advance.
Aristocrat Question
- Thread starter Cal1961
- Start date
I'd love to know as well but I think it's just different cases, same goes for the #14 set on Mr-Razors archive.
Yes, the razor itself is the same, just in different cases. The sets as a whole are what the numbers referred to. The razor itself was just the "Gillette Aristocrat."
- Thread starter
- #4
Interesting because Mr Razor says the #15 is 77g and the #20 is 72g but otherwise I am struggling to see the difference. People seem to rave about the #15 but the #20 gets little mention
Maybe the Rhodium was thicker on one then the other.
Only Achim would know if he has weighed a bunch or just the ones on his site.
Last edited:
Could be different scales or variances in the same scale, since I don't know what Achim used. Or it's possible that Gillette tweaked something very slightly over time -- I kinda question his putting that No. 20 set that he has at 1938 just on the basis of the large "Gillette" style headliner. It's hard to know exactly what was going on at the British plant in the years right around WWII, but the ads from the time that I've seen continue to show the diamond logo at least through '39 (late November example here, which is also the earliest reference I can find to the razor being rhodium plated, too, BTW), and it's not until after the war that you start seeing the large "Gillette" style cases in ads.
Of course, that's hardly definitive, and I could be completely wrong there. But it may also be possible that some of the open-comb Aristocrats were made in the year(s) immediately after the war as the British factory would have been getting back onto its feet. We've already seen the extreme oddity of the Anglo-American Aristocrat, which would seem to indicate that they either still had the open-comb parts or were still set up to make them possibly as late as '47.
I've got this No. 15 set at home that I can check to see what it weighs tonight, just to add another data point.
I have only seen two #20's Mr Razors and GreekGuys, very rare set in my opinion.
- Thread starter
- #8
I have a #20 set unused just as shown on Achim's site. Apart from the case and the weight the razors look identical.
OK, I chucked this one onto my digital scale for three separate readings and it came up 74g every time. I think that most likely there's just some scale variance going on here.
Porter, i was wondering. How accurate were the dates on those ads. Couldnt they be off by few years at times?Could be different scales or variances in the same scale, since I don't know what Achim used. Or it's possible that Gillette tweaked something very slightly over time -- I kinda question his putting that No. 20 set that he has at 1938 just on the basis of the large "Gillette" style headliner. It's hard to know exactly what was going on at the British plant in the years right around WWII, but the ads from the time that I've seen continue to show the diamond logo at least through '39 (late November example here, which is also the earliest reference I can find to the razor being rhodium plated, too, BTW), and it's not until after the war that you start seeing the large "Gillette" style cases in ads.
Of course, that's hardly definitive, and I could be completely wrong there. But it may also be possible that some of the open-comb Aristocrats were made in the year(s) immediately after the war as the British factory would have been getting back onto its feet. We've already seen the extreme oddity of the Anglo-American Aristocrat, which would seem to indicate that they either still had the open-comb parts or were still set up to make them possibly as late as '47.
I've got this No. 15 set at home that I can check to see what it weighs tonight, just to add another data point.
Yes, today's scales are way better than yesteryear.
- Thread starter
- #12
So I could put my#20 in my #16 case and create a #15
The specific ad that I was referencing has the magazine's dateline printed at the top of the page (November 22, 1939), so in that case we're not relying on someone's best guess for when it ran. Plus, you've also got the subject matter of the ad itself that helps confirm the time period, this being the very beginning of WWII.
You do need to be careful, though, if you just come across an ad out of context -- you'll find lots of vendors selling bagged and boarded ads cut from old magazines if you spend any time out antiquing, and in some cases the only date you've got is one that they penciled onto the board. In that case you'd want to look for other sources of that ad in context to verify that date.
We weren't talking about old Gillette-provided weights vs. new ones. I was talking about the differences between the Achim's listed weights for what should be, more or less, the same razor and what I get with my own scale for my example.
So I could put my#20 in my #16 case and create a #15
Well, sure, you could... Though you'd do better to find a spare No. 20 case and put a No. 15 razor into it, since the No. 20 is the rarer set. Of course, us folks who are trying to piece the bits of history back together would hunt you down and make your life miserable, then.
We get a little bit of a hint why the No. 20 might be so much less common than the No. 15 from the 1948 Australian price list that Achim's got on his site. According to that, at least in Australia at that time, the No. 15 and the No. 20 sets cost the same thing. My guess is that the shiny metal case of the No. 15 looked more impressive, just trying to think like someone shopping probably for a gift back then rather than as a collector today. So if they cost the same thing why wouldn't you pick the No. 15 over the No. 20?
- Thread starter
- #14
Ah hah good point. I actually thought the #15 was the rarer razor. Have to say love the #20 great shave.
Thanks for all this Info Guy's I Forgot i got my hands on a No. 20 a while back, So what i did was Weigh it and Took some pictures of it on the scale, Here is a link to my posting. http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...20-or-Just-a-No-20-Case?p=4684732#post4684732
So you really have to be vigilante and have CSI type detective skills of observation.
So less materilas or less plating was used in production due to careless manufacturing or cost cutting measures ? Why the weight variances ?
Thats a very good theory, the looks of the case could significantly increase the value and i am sure Gillette and its distributors were aware of this.Well, sure, you could... Though you'd do better to find a spare No. 20 case and put a No. 15 razor into it, since the No. 20 is the rarer set. Of course, us folks who are trying to piece the bits of history back together would hunt you down and make your life miserable, then.
We get a little bit of a hint why the No. 20 might be so much less common than the No. 15 from the 1948 Australian price list that Achim's got on his site. According to that, at least in Australia at that time, the No. 15 and the No. 20 sets cost the same thing. My guess is that the shiny metal case of the No. 15 looked more impressive, just trying to think like someone shopping probably for a gift back then rather than as a collector today. So if they cost the same thing why wouldn't you pick the No. 15 over the No. 20?
Some of the difference could just be from different people using different scales, or from the same person using a scale that's inaccurate or inconsistent. I personally use a digital kitchen scale that's pretty good but not great. That's why I take multiple readings when I weigh a razor.
But those issues aside, we do know that there were some design changes to the OC Aristocrat over the life of the No. 15 set. The change from silver to rhodium plating was one, the change from the un-winged to the winged center bar was another. I believe that there was a change to the interior mechanics of the handle, too, or at the very least the way the central shaft connects to the inner barrel of the TTO knob. That last one in particular could easily account for a few grams of difference between an older Aristocrat and a younger one without there being any outward change in appearance.
Ooh, a word problem! #5 Aristocrats, right?
