What's new

Double ring parade

KeenDogg

Slays On Fleek - For Rizz
I've been researching trying to figure out exactly when my PAT. AP. FOR was made. I know 1903 is the correct year. I guess where it gets murky is I've read conflicting things. One person says the first 53 sets were stamped this way but they produced 494 sets.
From the Gillette blade, Knickerson recalls them sending many free razors out to get the word out before sales even started.

Is it possible my razor could be from the free batch or from the first sales batch?

Were the 53 the end of the year sales or the 494. I dont know which came first. Also, am I correct in saying the "APL'D" came after the "AP" in the production run or were they running at the same time?

Given the minute size of the AP I'm guessing it was before the APLD.
20200113_171540.jpg
 

Attachments

  • part0(2).jpg
    part0(2).jpg
    771.8 KB · Views: 14
R

romsitsa

I've been researching trying to figure out exactly when my PAT. AP. FOR was made. I know 1903 is the correct year. I guess where it gets murky is I've read conflicting things. One person says the first 53 sets were stamped this way but they produced 494 sets.
From the Gillette blade, Knickerson recalls them sending many free razors out to get the word out before sales even started.

Is it possible my razor could be from the free batch or from the first sales batch?

Were the 53 the end of the year sales or the 494. I dont know which came first. Also, am I correct in saying the "APL'D" came after the "AP" in the production run or were they running at the same time?

Hello! Take a look at page 9-11 of the Gillette blade January 1919. The contract with Townsend&Hunt called for a delivery limit of 2k razors in 1903.
The 50 sent out on the 1st of January 1904 was the first commercial shipment Knickerson has a record of, so there could have been more.
And if they shipped on the 1st, the sale had to be done in 1903.
Further, during January 1904 they shipped approx. 1.2k sets, so I’ll guess they could also make a similar quantity a month earlier.

All I want to say is that the numbers seems to be really off.

Found an earlier post of mine. Forgot that Townsend was active from at least October, so I suspect they also sold some razors.

Adam
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KeenDogg

Slays On Fleek - For Rizz
Hello! Take a look at page 9-11 of the Gillette blade January 1919. The contract with Townsend&Hunt called for a delivery limit of 2k razors in 1903.
The 50 sent out on the 1st of January 1904 was the first commercial shipment Knickerson has a record of, so there could have been more.
And if they shipped on the 1st, the sale had to be done in 1903.
Further, during January 1904 they shipped approx. 1.2k sets, so I’ll guess they could also make a similar quantity a month earlier.

All I want to say is that the numbers seems to be really off.

Found an earlier post of mine. Forgot that Townsend was active from at least October, so I suspect they also sold some razors.

Adam
Adam, Thank you. It makes a lot of sense.
 
R

romsitsa

Adam, Thank you. It makes a lot of sense.

Glad if it helped you in any way.
Slightly off topic, can anyone point to a (preferably primary) source of the 49-53 sets (always varies) sold and the 494 produced in 1903?
It comes up over and over again, but where and by whom were these numbers published?

Adam
 
R

romsitsa

Hello, found from where the 51 sets and 14 dozen (168 blades) sold in 1903 "myth" comes from, a Gillette chart made around 1925-26.
I see some problems with these numbers:
Nickersons first recorded delivery was in January 1904., 50 sets.
In an interview from 1916, Pelham (Townsend & Hunt) talks about receiving 185 5 dollar bills in 1903 (one set was 5 USD, so 185 sets were ordered).
In 1903 blades were not sold by the dozen, this came in 1904.

The other weird thing is the serial numbering from 1904. According to Krumholz, the serial numbers were reverse engineered for 1903-1908 from Gillette sales reports, so there could be a small or large amount of error.
In theory 55000 sets were produced without a serial number, 45424 were serial numbered. From the 45424 roughly 25000 were stamped patent pending, 20000 were stamped Pat.Nov.15.04.
The patent stamp shouldn't be earlier than 15th November 1904, as who could have known beforehand when exactly the patent will be granted.
For 1904 Nickerson has the following production numbers:

January 1276
February 1255
March 1595
April 2920
May 3300
June 6265
July 6519
August 9661

32791 razors in the first 8 months. 68000 razors missing from the "official" quota.
If 20000 razors got the Pat.Nov. stamp (made between 15th November-31th December 1904) 48000 razors should have been made from September to middle of November.

Adam
 
Hello, found from where the 51 sets and 14 dozen (168 blades) sold in 1903 "myth" comes from, a Gillette chart made around 1925-26.
I see some problems with these numbers:
Nickersons first recorded delivery was in January 1904., 50 sets.
In an interview from 1916, Pelham (Townsend & Hunt) talks about receiving 185 5 dollar bills in 1903 (one set was 5 USD, so 185 sets were ordered).
In 1903 blades were not sold by the dozen, this came in 1904.

The other weird thing is the serial numbering from 1904. According to Krumholz, the serial numbers were reverse engineered for 1903-1908 from Gillette sales reports, so there could be a small or large amount of error.
In theory 55000 sets were produced without a serial number, 45424 were serial numbered. From the 45424 roughly 25000 were stamped patent pending, 20000 were stamped Pat.Nov.15.04.
The patent stamp shouldn't be earlier than 15th November 1904, as who could have known beforehand when exactly the patent will be granted.
For 1904 Nickerson has the following production numbers:

January 1276
February 1255
March 1595
April 2920
May 3300
June 6265
July 6519
August 9661

32791 razors in the first 8 months. 68000 razors missing from the "official" quota.
If 20000 razors got the Pat.Nov. stamp (made between 15th November-31th December 1904) 48000 razors should have been made from September to middle of November.

Adam

Great information. Thanks
 
My newly acquired 1904 “Modified” Double Ring

Was a mystery initially but members here, especially Adam figured it out. As you can see, everything looked ok until I saw the baseplate. Before cleaning, I didn’t see any markings on the handle also so I started to wonder if it was an old clone.

The baseplate was ground down to resemble the New Improved, the cap was trimmed and a better cleaning revealed the Pat Nov 04 markings on the handle. Based on the serial number, I assumed it was manufactured in November or December of 1904.

I have shaved with it and get a 2 pass BBS vs a 3 pass BBS with my Ball End Old Type. Very smooth Old Type with a gap. Still have a lot more cleaning to do.
 

Attachments

  • 3537F818-026F-40E5-ACFC-B4153FE27B4C.jpeg
    3537F818-026F-40E5-ACFC-B4153FE27B4C.jpeg
    893.4 KB · Views: 10
  • 79C1D2F5-5876-498A-A7D6-F137551EA64C.jpeg
    79C1D2F5-5876-498A-A7D6-F137551EA64C.jpeg
    588.7 KB · Views: 9
  • CE682F53-B92B-4B87-B77F-F5BE445E0F8E.jpeg
    CE682F53-B92B-4B87-B77F-F5BE445E0F8E.jpeg
    809.5 KB · Views: 10
  • 7FB83BCE-D404-41E0-BF89-19A2ED3A9D7E.jpeg
    7FB83BCE-D404-41E0-BF89-19A2ED3A9D7E.jpeg
    671 KB · Views: 10
  • A1636ADE-266E-48CE-BDFE-E0AE14A79997.jpeg
    A1636ADE-266E-48CE-BDFE-E0AE14A79997.jpeg
    849.8 KB · Views: 11
  • 406B2571-BB2A-4385-BFA2-809E6076C54D.jpeg
    406B2571-BB2A-4385-BFA2-809E6076C54D.jpeg
    613.7 KB · Views: 9
  • 4E99741C-4127-4863-98C9-D5A9B3A80E57.jpeg
    4E99741C-4127-4863-98C9-D5A9B3A80E57.jpeg
    759 KB · Views: 9
  • 2E9334E2-E6ED-46F4-AA4F-3375BC17DB1D.jpeg
    2E9334E2-E6ED-46F4-AA4F-3375BC17DB1D.jpeg
    781.2 KB · Views: 9
  • 34AA36C5-7509-4D5E-A3C5-44C05A27C300.jpeg
    34AA36C5-7509-4D5E-A3C5-44C05A27C300.jpeg
    791.2 KB · Views: 9
Top Bottom