What's new

Gillette Goodwill and New

R

romsitsa

Hello,

while browsing the internet found some confusing information.

1933.
"In November, 1929, a safety razor—known as the bar type razor—which might or might not come under the patent—went into production and was put on sale by the appellant in the early part of 1930, but the manufacture of that article was soon abandoned; and, then, another safety razor, known as the Goodwill type, claimed to be made under the patent by the appellant, came on the market in May or June, 1931. "

Source: Gillette Safety Razor Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Pal Blade Corporation Ltd. - SCC Cases (Lexum) - https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/8743/index.do

Based on this sole statement, the Goodwill was not a "free" razor, but an alternative to the Gillette New desing, using only the Gaisman patents.
If the above citation is true, it would explain why Goodwills, like the 175, exists. It would also explain why Goodwill type razors (like the London or Empire sets) were sold (not given away) in the UK, France and Germany around 1932-33.

The other weird piece of the puzzle is this picture from Waits Compendium, pg. 448. The picture come from a 1935 Gillette Probak exhibit (never seen it) also mentioned by Krumholz.
The Probak comb design marked with a red arrow is actually the SC New?

ssasc.jpg

The third thing, the citation from the court suggest that the long slot design was only used between 1929 and 1930, while the Waits picture suggest it was used from 1929 well into 1935.
Both "statements" can't be true.

On solution would be that Gillette abandoned the long slot idea after the merger and sticked with Gaismans patent for a few years.
In theory the "positive registration" required lesser tolerances, so cheaper manufature, but then why did they reintroduce the long slot design in the mid 30ies?
Another solution could be that after the merger Gillette factories produced long slot razors while the Autostrop plants made the "positive registration" razors?

Fourth and last, after seeing a Canadian 162 in person, the old type caps converted to Goodwills (162, 164) are cast, like New caps, so I don't think that Gillette used surplus old type stocks to convert them into Goodwills, but these were newly produced items.

Adam
 
This is interesting.
The third thing, the citation from the court suggest that the long slot design was only used between 1929 and 1930, while the Waits picture suggest it was used from 1929 well into 1935.
Both "statements" can't be true.
Since the court reference is Feb of 1933, anything after that date would simply be an addendum. Your suppositions are fair as the mergers are bound to create changes and new directions, even with old projects. Further, I'd like to think it was shelved instead of abandoned, perhaps due to the economic climate.

The other weird piece of the puzzle is this picture from Waits Compendium, pg. 448. The picture come from a 1935 Gillette Probak exhibit (never seen it) also mentioned by Krumholz.
The Probak comb design marked with a red arrow is actually the SC New?
Waits does refer to it as a Goodwill Type Variant and the subsequent attempts at labeling the 2 different Short Comb NEW razors have been pretty hit-and-miss. I don't fault him, I do think there is ample room for error and/or mistakes.


FWIW, US2034340A(Apl'd Nov 7, 1931 and granted Mar 17, 1936) Appears to relate with the No. 164 Goodwill.
 
R

romsitsa

If I understand correctly, Waits "copied" the photos from an actual 1935 Gillette document and Krumholz also writes about a "display" from the same year listing various Gillette head designs.
So if the SC New was really displayed as a Probak design, then our theory, that the SC was designed by Probak, is confirmed.
I didn't know the US2034340A patent, but it's interesting that Gaisman sticked to the "old type" design even after the merger (no notches at the corners, no fulcrum shoulder, no center recess), this is in line with how the SC design doesn't use the fulcrum shoulders that was "perfected" by Gillette in 1928.
Problem is, that the SC, compared to the Goodwills, has no "positive registration" so I don't see how it could be a Goodwill.
The same is true for the Canadian old type head (three hole) with notched corners. This also lacks "postitive registration" so shouldn't be a Goodwill.

Adam
 
For the sake of being in the same Page, positive registration is defined as blade to guard, blade to cap, cap to guard, or blade, cap, and guard interaction?
 
I've always been of the belief that the SC was an Autostrop-Probak design, in part because we know it was manufactured in what had previously been Autostrop plants , as in South America.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
proxy.php

proxy.php
proxy.php
 
Last edited:
R

romsitsa

For the sake of being in the same Page, positive registration is defined as blade to guard, blade to cap, cap to guard, or blade, cap, and guard interaction?

This was lengthly discussed in several court cases. A very crude definition of mine:
New/Thompson razor: long slot in base, fulcrum shoulders, corners of the cap reinforced.
Goodwill/positive registation razor: locating pins on the comb, cap has recesses. The cap, comb and blade together determine where the blade actually sits.

Adam
 
When you place a NEW blade on the cap of the either of my Short Comb types, there is positive registration.
C6FE09C5-8B75-40E3-B49F-9D216759642C.jpeg


And it is important to note the nickel Short Comb(Big Boy Hybrid and Cambridge) uses the Long Comb cap, while the Gold-wash Short Comb uses the more “unique” cap.
 
R

romsitsa

Hello David,

the basic difference between the New (made under the Thompson patents) and Goodwill (made under the Gaisman patents) is:
A New is aligned (is in shaving position) even without the blade loaded.
A Goodwill is not aligned without the blade in place.
"Positive registration" was used by Gillette on Goodwill ads and boxes, most likely to diferentiate it from the "New", it provided a smoother and quicker shave, at least this was the slogan.
At court a Gillette engineer stated that Goodwill razor parts could be made with bigger tolerances, so they could be manufactured cheaper or if they have the same tolerances as other razors, than they will clamp the blade even more precise.

Adam
 
I was under the impression that the reverse studs and the way they aligned the blade without the cap made a Goodwill, a Goodwill and the NEW was identified as such with the alignment bar.
 
By way of additional context , a quick search of newspapers shows Gillette did no corporate advertising for their razors during 1932-33, reappearing in 1934 with the Red and Black sets. What you do have in '32 of course was the two part apology for bad blades splash appearing everywhere early in the year. This was accompanied by a parallel increase in advertising for Probak blades (especially in Canada)--ads which don't indicate Probak is a Gillette product.

proxy.php


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
R

romsitsa

I found the same thing for 1932-33, nothing. This would mean that the low priced sets, like the Federal or Berkshire were actually produced for roughly a year only?

Going with Achims site and the Compendium, it looks like the standardised blade was only made/marketed from 1933.
Till then the original Gillette New blade didn’t work with the original Probak razor (there was a remodelled cap in 1931, but I never seen one) and the LC New didn’t accept the original slotted Probak blade.

Adam
 
R

romsitsa

Pretty long read, but imho worth it. If I understand correctly, tje Supreme court decided, that the New/Gaisman blade shouldn't have been patentable at all.

And seemingly producing replacement blades for the Gillette New was not a patent infringement. Things are slowly making sense.

Adam
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

romsitsa

The funny or tragic (you decide) part is that the above cases state that a replacement blade fitting Goodwills/News can be produced without infringing the original patent and that a blade that looks similar to the New/Gaisman blade doesn't neccesseraly infringe any Gillette/Gaisman patent, so in theory the original Gillette vs. Gaisman court case also should have been dismissed.

Adam
 
R

romsitsa

A pretty clear description of what Thompson (Gillette New) actually invented:
Gillette_Thompson.jpg
Thompson reinforced the corners of the cap, so if dropped it wouldn't develop burrs and notched the blade so it would function even with burred caps.
Gaisman put four "prongs" in the cap (see Probak razor caps), these prongs locked the blade into its proper position.
So while Gillette New and Goodwill caps have reinforced corners, they are actually not covered by the Gaisman patent.

Adam
 
R

romsitsa

Hello,

found this while browsing, looks to be some kind of advertisement, the description dates it to 1932, but the "3 years" statement makes it more likely to be from 1933.
Looks like the new management killed the New line in 1931, question is why?
My guess is still that some patents of the Gillette New were still pending after the merger, so to protect the razor and blade from rivals they changed to the already available Gaisman patents.
Anoter interesting (at least for me) bit of information is, that the Goodwill campaign is basically a copy of the Valet million dollar (buy 10 Valet blades, get a razor for free) campaign from 1928.
gw.jpg
 

Hannah's Dad

I Can See Better Than Bigfoot.
Hello,

found this while browsing, looks to be some kind of advertisement, the description dates it to 1932, but the "3 years" statement makes it more likely to be from 1933.
Looks like the new management killed the New line in 1931, question is why?
My guess is still that some patents of the Gillette New were still pending after the merger, so to protect the razor and blade from rivals they changed to the already available Gaisman patents.
Anoter interesting (at least for me) bit of information is, that the Goodwill campaign is basically a copy of the Valet million dollar (buy 10 Valet blades, get a razor for free) campaign from 1928.
View attachment 1204429
Interesting find, Adam! Inasmuch as there ‘is nothing new under the Sun’, we’re all, in a sense, plagiarists.
 
R

romsitsa

Another “odd” set, Goodwill patents on a New cardboard box.

And a Goodwill with the New patent added to the box.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom