Early Single Ring? Mixed Parts?? What have I got here?

[T Rick]

Picked up the razor pictured (Sellers pic, I'll shoot more later) and it arrived today. It's a lovely blackened silver plated Single Ring. Case is the same as the Double Rings (thought perhaps it was an '06 Single Ring when I bid, now I wonder what is up).

The serial number 288248 places it as 1905. But AFAIK, the Double Ring was produced into early/mid 1906, when the Single Ring replaced it. I've looked at it with a 10 x loupe, there definitely is no letter preceding the serial number.

I do know I've seen other Single Rings in cases the same as Double Rings. Any thoughts on what exactly I've picked up here?

BTW, patent marks are as expected, "Pat. Nov. 15 '04"
It's a beauty, perfect in every way, I'm even tempted to leave this one "in the black" with the tarnish. Probably not though, they shine so great when it's removed!

 

[SmoovD]

Big Fellow?

 

[Oldguy]

It's an early Single Ring. I suppose it's possible some were released in 1905. The case is consistent with some early Single Rings furnished in the New York Double Ring case.

Len

 

[Oldguy]

I had another thought. Since the serial number is on the inner handle tube, could it be possible it was mixed up with a Double Ring tube? Of course we'll never know. But the tubes are identical.

Len

 

[T Rick]

Big Fellow?

Nope. I have two of those (Old Type and New Improved, '21 and '22). They are MUCH thicker and longer than the Single Rings (which is for sure what this one is). But thanks for offering a suggestion! . BTW, I don't have cases for either of mine. One sold in a lot last night on eBay and I was outbid (on what I thought was a high enough bid ). I hope someone here got it and had a Big Fellow for it! (BTW, what they may have expected to be a Slim Adjustable in a case was I am pretty sure a Fat Boy in a Slim Adjustable case).

I had another thought. Since the serial number is on the inner handle tube, could it be possible it was mixed up with a Double Ring tube? Of course we'll never know. But the tubes are identical.

Len

Precisely why I mentioned mixed parts in the thread title. It occurred to me that someone may have had both a Double Ring and a Single Ring, had them both apart together and mixed the head retaining nut on reassembly. Then again, that seems almost a bit far fetched (depending on where in the last 100 or so years it might have happened).

Like you say, we'll never know. The case could have been mixed too. But for now, I guess I will just refer to it as a 1905 (?) Single Ring. I suppose that is also a distinct possibility? Or not...

 

[Oldguy]

T Rick,
I compared the inner tubes from my Double Ring and a Single Ring from 1906. They are absolutely identical. I also checked the inner tube from a 1915 and a 1921 Single Ring and they are also identical to the Double Ring.

Len

 

[T Rick]

What was the last year for this type of case? I'm thinking 1906 (though no guarantee it is original to the razor either, but it would seem to me unlikely that both a tube and a case were switched from a Double Ring- then again, if the DR had a cracked handle... Phtt! Wish there were some way to date the razor body!

 

[Oldguy]

Also while the tube for the New improved is fatter then either the DR and SR it is actually a little shorter. This is based on the inner tubes of a Bostonian, Richwood and a New Standard. Are you sure you're not looking at a Big Fellow?

Len

 

[Oldguy]

What was the last year for this type of case? I'm thinking 1906 (though no guarantee it is original to the razor either, but it would seem to me unlikely that both a tube and a case were switched from a Double Ring- then again, if the DR had a cracked handle... Phtt! Wish there were some way to date the razor body!

The Gillette Script case was used on 1906 Single Rings. So I guess 1906 was the last year for the DR case. I also believe that 1906 SR razors were only found in the New York case.

Len

 

[T Rick]

Yep, I'm sure. I've got several other Single Rings (1910, 1911 and 1912, plus 2 more on the way). This is a Single Ring (like I said, I also have two Big Fellows, a 21 Old Type in Silver and a '22 New Improved in Gold). Plus, the Big Fellow wouldn't fit this case, much too long. On top of that, the serial number is way wrong for them.

 

[T Rick]

I'm gonna get the loupe back out... Maybe I misread the first number? Stand by...

 

[Oldguy]

I'm not questioning the Single Ring. I'm questioning what has a longer inner tube. From what I see only the Big Fellow does.

Len

 

[cfriend]

I had another thought. Since the serial number is on the inner handle tube, could it be possible it was mixed up with a Double Ring tube? Of course we'll never know. But the tubes are identical.

Len

This is interesting to me. I had a single ring a while back, and I'm pretty sure the serial was on the barrel. Maybe mine was a mixmatch too?

 

[Oldguy]

This is interesting to me. I had a single ring a while back, and I'm pretty sure the serial was on the barrel. Maybe mine was a mixmatch too?

The early Single Rings had the serial number on the barrel as well. I don't know when the change-over to the blade guard came about.

Len

 

[T Rick]

Okay, I'm back (with pics!). First up, I did read the serial number correctly.

Next, the serial numbers seem to have moved from the barrel/nut to the head either in or between 1910 and 1911. Here is a pic of the 4 Single Rings I have on hand, L to R are a 1910 (serial number on barrel, case bought separately), the mystery Single Ring in question with the 1905 serial number, and a 1912 Canadian Single Ring with serial number on head. In the front is a 1911 Single ring, serial number on head (bought without case, I have one coming).

Here are the above along with two Big Fellows. These are MUCH fatter and longer than a Single Ring. The barrel/nut is about the same diameter as the handle tube on a Single Ring, and will not insert. In addition, it is also longer than the handle tube on the Single Ring. Didn't get pics of all this (hadn't read the above when I shot), but the mystery Single Ring's barrel/nut is (according to my Carpenter's eye without actually measuring) within 1/8 inch (less I think) of the same length as the 1911, just a hair longer. However, the 1910 is also slightly different in length (again less than 1/8 inch).

For fun (and reference), here's a Big Fellow laid into a Single Ring/Double Ring case...

And a Single Ring flanked by a pair of Big Fellows.

Guess this mystery won't be solved, but I can safely assume it's pre 1911 (serial not on head), so I know it's a hundred year old razor. I just don't know what I'll call it now.

 

[Oldguy]

Nice job. I'm going to put my DR and 5 SR inner tubes side by side and take a photo. It will have to be tomorrow as I've got company arriving any minute.

My razors are DR 1905. SR 1906, 1915, 1916, 1920, 1921. All U.S. models.

To be continued.

Len

 

[T Rick]

Okay! Come to think of it, it sounds like a good thing to check, I'll do one too when the other two come (another 1911 and a Travel Set of unknown date). It'll be interesting to see if there is a discernible pattern.

 

[AsylumGuido]

What was the last year for this type of case? I'm thinking 1906 (though no guarantee it is original to the razor either, but it would seem to me unlikely that both a tube and a case were switched from a Double Ring- then again, if the DR had a cracked handle... Phtt! Wish there were some way to date the razor body!

That was my first thought. The owner replaced the barrel portion of his double ring razor when it cracked with a knob off a new 1906 razor.

 

[T Rick]

That was my first thought. The owner replaced the barrel portion of his double ring razor when it cracked with a knob off a new 1906 razor.

That does make sense to an extent. But it also makes one wonder why he would switch the barrel/nut, when the other came with a new one. Unless a new body was provided by Gillette, possibly under warranty? They wouldn't have had a Double Ring body to give him if they were out of production. Come to think of it, weren't these guaranteed for life?.

 

[AsylumGuido]

That does make sense to an extent. But it also makes one wonder why he would switch the barrel/nut, when the other came with a new one. Unless a new body was provided by Gillette, possibly under warranty? They wouldn't have had a Double Ring body to give him if they were out of production. Come to think of it, weren't these guaranteed for life?.

Good point! What if his double ring barrel had issues and they sent him a single ring replacement. Heck, it was newer and improved! He would have been cool with it.