Gillette Single Rings with British Patent Numbers

[MacDaddy]

I disagree with your interpretation on a few key points:

However, the initial lease and subsequent purchase of land with an existing building allowed manufacture to begin before June 30, 1908 which is when the business was sold as “a going concern”, not in liquidation.

Here's the full text of the reference you're alluding to there:

On the 29th Sept. 1908 a company named the Gillette Safety Razor Co. of England, Ld. (hereinafter called the English company), of 17, Holborn Viaduct, was registered in London under the Companies Acts, and by an agreement dated September 30, 1908, it purchased from the Boston company as from June 30, 1908, as a going concern, (1) the goodwill of the business; (2) the leasehold premises at 17, Holborn Viaduct, and Leicester, (3.) all plant, machinery, stock-in-trade, etc., (4.) the benefit of all pending contracts, (5.) all other property except the British Letters Patent of the English branch of the Boston company.​

From that it's pretty clear that what was acquired as "a going concern" was all of Gillette's business in England, the sales branch as well as the nascent factory. Whether or not the factory was already in operation at that point couldn't really be concluded from that statement alone. The sales branch and all of its contracts and business relationships would have been enough of a "going concern" in its own right.

And of course it wasn't in liquidation. There wasn't a corporate entity going out of existence. This was a new company buying assets from an existing one that went on existing afterwards.

I do look on the fact that the company was in liquidation as an indicator of failure.

I would agree with you if it said that the company was going through a creditors' voluntary liquidation; however, it's entirely possible (and I believe more likely, as explained below) that what the company was going through was a members' voluntary liquidation. Your quote from BusinessDictionary explains the difference, but I think this link from GOV.uk does a better job:

There are 2 kinds of voluntary liquidation:

• creditors’ voluntary liquidation - you and your shareholders choose to liquidate your company because it can’t pay its debts
• members’ voluntary liquidation - your company can pay its debts but you want to close it

Your company may be forced into compulsory liquidation if it can’t pay its debts.​

One major thing that you seem to be overlooking here is that Gillette realigned its entire corporate structure at this time, not just its business in the UK. The main US company reorganized as a Massachussetts corporation at the same time as they created Massachussetts corporations for the UK and Canada. The US company (which was previously a Maine corporation) was capitalized at $13M and the UK one at $2M. The Canadian company, by way of comparison, was only capitalized at $500K. See the below capture from the absolute page-turner that is the Abstract of the Certificates of Corporations Organized Under the General Laws of Massachusetts for the year ending Nov 30, 1912.

Unless you think that the UK business was doing so poorly that it caused Gillette to reorganize its entire corporate structure, it seems far simpler to believe that the reverse is true -- that the corporate restructuring is what prompted the liquidation of the British corporation to be replaced with the American-based one. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

A company in liquidation for over 12 months had financial problems and unpaid creditors. Action by the High court of Britain is by no means a routine or trivial matter. The High court addresses only the most extreme cases, the costs involved are very high, and recourse to that court is a last resort.

This is all pretty heavily speculative, and I still think you're misreading the use of the term "sanctioned" in the full text (below). I don't see any reason to think, from that alone, that there was any sort of action filed against GSR, Ltd. at the time of its liquidation. For all we know in the early 1900s the lengthy time in liquidation was mandatory in order to allow any potential creditors to file claims, and I don't know that the High Court of Bankruptcy wasn't the entity to oversee all corporate dissolutions, voluntary or otherwise, or conceivably ones of a suitably high value. The High Court's involvement in that quote seems to be strictly limited to issuing an order approving the acquisition. Unless we can find some other record of any actual action brought against GSR, Ltd. from that time I just don't see how I could agree with your reading of it.

In 1912 it was thought desirable that an American company should be formed and that the business should be carried on by it and accordingly the English company went into voluntary liquidation on August 3, 1912, and was finally wound up on October 6, 1913.

On the 2nd Sept. 1912 the Gillette Safety Razor Limited of Massachusetts, USA (hereinafter called the USA company), was registered. The greater part of the share capital of this company was owned and held by the Boston company and the majority of the directors of the USA company were directors of the Boston company.

One of the objects of the USA company was to acquire all assets and rights of the English company then in liquidation, an object which was attained, being sanctioned by an order of the High Court of Justice dated July 1, 1913.​

I see support for this argument in the fact that, at this point in time, we have only about 600,000 razors that we might attribute to Leicester. If that facility operated for 4 years (1909-1912 inclusive), then production would not have exactly been “humming” along. If we consider the possibility that the Paris and Berlin production was included in these figures, or that manufacture continued for another two and a half years then the yearly production figures are even more abysmal. There is also the possibility that when the English company was wound up the American company went back to using the Boston protocol, patent and numbering to mark the razors, in which case they would fall outside the parameters of this exercise.

I still don't think we have enough of an idea at all for what the UK production looked like to be able to conjecture with any suitable amount of accuracy. However, I would point to what we've gathered so far from the Canadian production in this time. It's not inconceivable that they didn't clear a million razors from the time they were established in 1906 through the expiration of the Old Type patents, and yet we're not talking about them as a failing concern.

 

[GBinOZ]

Hi Porter,
I think that discussion of disagreements in interpretation are productive in this process.

Reading Marshall’s comments of this time I see a pattern of cause and effect, or motive and solution. He says that the decision for a factory in Leicester was driven by an expected change in patent laws and large Continental orders. Time was of the essence in this regard and an existing building suitable for manufacture was leased and negotiations commenced for purchase of the site. Boston then supplied plant and machinery which were included in the assets of the purchase. Given the time imperatives which revolved around manufacture, as the sales capability already existed, what commercially sound reason can there be to speculate that the plant and equipment installed in the existing building zoned for manufacture were standing idle?

When Canada started manufacture, according to the sales vs production comparison, supply exceeded demand. As Alex suggested earlier in this thread, expansion into Europe saved the company. In the face of this demand we see, under the management of the English company, production started in buildings acquired in Paris and Berlin with machinery supplied by Boston. Then manufacture, of razors at least, in these places stopped and their plant (or part thereof) sent to Leicester. According to Marshall, English company management firstly implemented an “Inspection Department” and then closed “Continental” production facilities on the basis that they were incapable of efficiently producing razors. (how ever did they manage to produce the Nieuport and Albatros only a little over a decade after the Wright Bros). Then, when manufacture was concentrated back at Leicester, the raison d’etre of which was to service the large Continental orders, we see them produce, in the entire life of the factory, only 10% more than Boston produced in 1909 alone. This from a factory described as nearly as big as Boston. Doesn’t look like business acumen to me.

With regard to Members’ Voluntary Liquidation, attention needs to be paid to the time constraints which were not met. “ Members voluntary winding up: under which the directors make a statutory declaration of the firm's solvency within the five weeks preceding the adoption of resolution. This declaration must state that, upon an inquiry into the firm's financial affairs, directors are of the opinion that the firm can pay off its debts in full within a specified period not exceeding 12 months after commencement of winding up.

I am not an expert in Corporate Law, but I do have tertiary qualifications in Cadastral Law and Conveyancing and a Real Estate Agency qualification, and Australian real estate laws are closely based on the English model. When I bought my current business the fact that it was a “going concern” was of critical importance to the Government’s application of the GST laws to the purchase. I registered my business name and purchased the business from a company. The vendor did not liquidate his business, it was simply transferred to my business name with a provision in the contract that there were no outstanding debts to suppliers, and he subsequently relinquished his business name. The process was handled by rural Solicitors in about a month with no recourse to any court necessary, and the new boss wasn’t the same as the old boss. I just don’t buy that an “all in the family” transfer of a financially sound business whose manufacture was “humming along” as part of a corporate realignment should require such extraordinary measures. I don’t suggest that this process prompted the corporate re-organisation but that it would have been considered as part of an efficiency rationalisation. But if you have specialist knowledge of the British Corporate Laws involving requirements for transfers between British and Foreign companies then I will stand corrected. It seems to me that the process going the other way in 1908 was a lot simpler.

Looking again at Marshall’s account, I observe that he tends to dwell excessively on minor details such as moving premises and addresses but fails to put dates on these events. He says that when they were settled at Leicester they manufactured enough goods to supply England, the Colonies and Europe, but when was this quoted settling in? Was it after the English company was finally wound up in late 1913? I find it interesting that Marshall management style seems to be quite unconcerned about the upheaval in the lives of “staff” being required to uproot themselves from their homes in London to be transplanted to the relative wilderness of Leicester, and then showing sympathetic empathy for the “Directorate” who had their homes and businesses in London no longer being inconvenienced when the sales office was moved back to London. I also detected a note of bitterness when he concludes “For the development of our business, most of these changes were necessary”. I recall from my days in management that this type of statement was invariably made by those whose practices had been judged ineffective and who grudgingly concede that some change had been necessary “for the good of the company”.

Well, so much for our disagreements, but do we have any areas of agreement. Or, at the risk of being a bit cheeky, is there any aspects about which I have convinced you?

 

[GBinOZ]

I found another example on eBay:



Serial Number is 111461. I contacted the vendor and she confirmed that the patent number is PAT.NOV.15.04.N and in has the GinD stamp (language differences prevented determining whether a square or a cartouche). Of special note is that the patent statement on the box doesn't show KCG as president.
I am about to update the wiki.

Cheers, George

 

[mjclark]

Just to bump this thread, I've just acquired a Single Ring with serial no. H084520 around the base of the handle, B.R.PAT. No 2876302 around top of inner tube and diamond logo with "known the world over" under the top cap but no baseplate markings.

So am I right in thinking that we still can't date any of these firmly and can only say with confidence that they are pre-1919?

 

[dpm802]

Just to bump this thread, I've just acquired a Single Ring with serial no. H084520 around the base of the handle, B.R.PAT. No 2876302 around top of inner tube and diamond logo with "known the world over" under the top cap but no baseplate markings.

I have serial no. E210504, same BR.Pat. in the same place. Mine has the GinD logo on the up-side of the bottom plate. Judging from the patina, I think its silver-plated.

So am I right in thinking that we still can't date any of these firmly and can only say with confidence that they are pre-1919?

I've been trying to put a date on this ever since I first got it. At first, I thought 1905, but that was before I realized that the British serial numbers don't line up with the American ones. I still don't know exactly when it was made, but I feel safe to say it is the oldest DE in my collection.

 

[GBinOZ]

I've been trying to put a date on this ever since I first got it. At first, I thought 1905, but that was before I realized that the British serial numbers don't line up with the American ones. I still don't know exactly when it was made, but I feel safe to say it is the oldest DE in my collection.

Thanks for the contributions guys.

dpm802, does your razor have the diamond logo on either or both the guard and the cap?

When I started this thread it was for the purpose of addressing the exact questions raised above. We didn't quite get the response in the way of data contributions that I had anticipated. A great deal of research has been done, and in this regard we owe thanks to Porter, Mike Blakele and Alex. The interpretation of the data and research has produced some widely divergent opinions and a consensus has not been reached. However, I feel that owners of British razors would like to be able to estimate the date of their razor beyond just "pre-1919". With this in mind, in the next few days I will post my speculative theory based on my interpretation of the data collected and the research done so far, and leave it to members to decide whether it meets their individual level of acceptable evidence.

Stay tuned folks.

Cheers, George

 

[mblakele]

I have serial no. E210504, same BR.Pat. in the same place. Mine has the GinD logo on the up-side of the bottom plate. Judging from the patina, I think its silver-plated.

You could test that part – at least if you are willing to give up the patina. If the baking soda and foil process removes the patina while producing a sulfurous smell, that means silver.

For the age I would say 1909-15, and probably at the earlier end of that range. I say that because at http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...Single-Ring-known/page4?p=5013450#post5013450 you mentioned a diamond logo on top of the guard plate, and a British patent number. We seem to have consensus and pretty good evidence that the diamond logo started on top, then moved to the bottom over time. There also seems to be consensus that the G-in-D was for the European market. From what we have at Gillette_England_Dating_Information it seems a little unusual to have the G-in-D on an E-series razor, but not unprecedented.

Speculating, there seems to be some reason to believe that Leicester started out with the British patent number and an E series for both England and Europe - and likely Crown colonies too. Then at some point they started an F series, probably for France but maybe for the entire continental market. Around the same time stopped using a patent number or switched to the USA patent number. The H series might have started about the same time as F, or might be later still. It is tricky to prove any of that speculation, but it has some plausibility.

Does it help to introduce what we think we know about production numbers? From USA serial numbers we think that Boston made about 550,000 razors in 1909, about 475,000 in 1910, about 380,000 in 1911, and about 180,000 in 1912. In 1912 worldwide production was reported to be about 600,000 razors, and 650,000 in 1913. So it seems reasonable to suppose that Leicester and Montreal were each picking up production for their markets from Boston. We could posit that Montreal and Leicester each produced about 200,000 razors in 1912. However if there was any imbalance it was probably in favor of Montreal, because that plant had a head start of a year or so. We think Boston produced about 90,000 razors in 1904, its first full year of production, but went to about 325,000 the following year and about 400,000 the year after that. That may suggest what a new factory could do, given enough demand.

To me this suggests that 1909 is a little too early for a Leicester E210504, but ca. 1910-1912 sounds plausible. Also because this razor seems similar to the early F series examples, maybe the F series started ca. 1911-13? However there are plenty of alternative ideas. For example it seems Montreal may have created multiple C series, so we might suspect similar behavior in Leicester.

It is late here, so I hope I have those numbers and years in the right order and did not make too many mistakes. In any case I look forward to reading what other gents have to say.

 

[mjclark]

So what about my H serial and Diamond+Known The World Over on the underside of the top cap?
It's definitely silver plated.

I love threads like these where historical research and discussion make breakthroughs in dating information etc.

Good work all round!

 

[dpm802]

dpm802, does your razor have the diamond logo on either or both the guard and the cap?

I have the diamond logo on the upper side of the bottom plate. It is not visible when the razor is put together. I find this unusual, since KCG liked to see his name on EVERYTHING.

I was under the assumption that G-in-D stands for "Gillette in Diamond," or is it something else? I went looking in the ShaveWiki list of Abbreviations and Acronyms just now to confirm this, but its not there. Perhaps someone should add it.
"

 

[nuclearblast]

I have the diamond logo on the upper side of the bottom plate.

I was under the assumption that G-in-D stands for "Gillette in Diamond," or is it something else? I went looking in the ShaveWiki list of Abbreviations and Acronyms just now to confirm this, but its not there. Perhaps someone should add it.
"

The G in D was simply a requirement for razors imported to France. Now why the French government required that I have no idea. You will find it on Old Types, New Improved, even NEWs. It appears on both razors from the US and UK.
At least this is Porter's theory and I think it makes sense.

Curious that yours has the Gillette logo, and mine doesn't ... Yours is supposed to have been made before mine ... My date code is F something ...

 

[nuclearblast]

 

[mblakele]

The G in D was simply a requirement for razors imported to France. Now why the French government required that I have no idea. You will find it on Old Types, New Improved, even NEWs. It appears on both razors from the US and UK.
At least this is Porter's theory and I think it makes sense.

Curious that yours has the Gillette logo, and mine doesn't ... Yours is supposed to have been made before mine ... My date code is F something ...

Not speaking for Porter, and I agree that the G-in-D correlates with the European market. However I am not so sure the mark was required by law. From what I understand marking silver plate was voluntary. If Gillette did it simply because customers expected it, that comes to about the same thing. But it means the symbol probably was not registered anywhere, and could be changed at will. I think that helps explain some discrepancies.

Your F series is F165374 with the British patent license on the case, right? It may not be any later than a Leicester E210504, and could even be earlier. One plausible theory is E=England (really the whole UK and crown colonies) while F=France (really all of Europe). Yesterday I suggested minimal overlap, but the data for the diamond logo and the locations of the serial numbers would also make sense if they were roughly parallel series. If so that pushes out all the date estimates based on production estimates, because total production in any year would include both series - plus anything else that was coming from Leicester, such as the H series. The problem is we have very little idea what was going on over there.

Another oddity I was thinking about is that we have no samples past E266131 and F380113, and only about 100,000 in the H series (I am suspicious of H711612 with its script logo case). That suggests at least 800,000 razors made 1909-1915, but I expected even more. I think Leicester could have made well over a million in that period. It might be a question of luck before we see higher numbers. Or my estimate might be too high. Maybe the fall-off in production after Britain entered WWI was more rapid that I though. Quite a few razors probably went to war and never came back - and probably they were recent production. As usual for this era we have more theories than facts.

 

[nuclearblast]

Not speaking for Porter, and I agree that the G-in-D correlates with the European market. However I am not so sure the mark was required by law. From what I understand marking silver plate was voluntary. If Gillette did it simply because customers expected it, that comes to about the same thing. But it means the symbol probably was not registered anywhere, and could be changed at will. I think that helps explain some discrepancies.

Thanks for clarifying this. I knew it was something along these lines but not 100% sure.

Your F series is F165374 with the British patent license on the case, right?

Yup, and it has the PAT.NOV.15.04.N on the handle as seen in the pics above.

My uneducated opinion is that the theory of the parallel runs and separate letters for the different countries/regions makes a lot of sense. At least so far pretty much all F series seem to come from France or Italy ( likely originally from France), not that it proves anything, things cross borders quite easily, but it must mean something.

I hope one day you guys will be able to accurately date my SR ...

 

[GBinOZ]

I have the diamond logo on the upper side of the bottom plate. It is not visible when the razor is put together. I find this unusual, since KCG liked to see his name on EVERYTHING.
"

Not speaking for Porter, and I agree that the G-in-D correlates with the European market. However I am not so sure the mark was required by law. From what I understand marking silver plate was voluntary. If Gillette did it simply because customers expected it, that comes to about the same thing. But it means the symbol probably was not registered anywhere, and could be changed at will. I think that helps explain some discrepancies.

Your F series is F165374 with the British patent license on the case, right? It may not be any later than a Leicester E210504, and could even be earlier. One plausible theory is E=England (really the whole UK and crown colonies) while F=France (really all of Europe). Yesterday I suggested minimal overlap, but the data for the diamond logo and the locations of the serial numbers would also make sense if they were roughly parallel series. If so that pushes out all the date estimates based on production estimates, because total production in any year would include both series - plus anything else that was coming from Leicester, such as the H series. The problem is we have very little idea what was going on over there.

Another oddity I was thinking about is that we have no samples past E266131 and F380113, and only about 100,000 in the H series (I am suspicious of H711612 with its script logo case). That suggests at least 800,000 razors made 1909-1915, but I expected even more. I think Leicester could have made well over a million in that period. It might be a question of luck before we see higher numbers. Or my estimate might be too high. Maybe the fall-off in production after Britain entered WWI was more rapid that I though. Quite a few razors probably went to war and never came back - and probably they were recent production. As usual for this era we have more theories than facts.

Thanks or that information dpm802. That is the only example so far found with that placement for the logo. I'll enter both razors on the Wiki.

My opinion in regard to the GinD and GinSquare is as stated by Mike, that it was an expectation rather than a regulation. However, I think it was an expectation in France rather than Europe as a whole, and that the 5 point star that has been found on some razors was for a similar expectation in Italy.

I concur with Mike's parallel production theory and am also suspicious of the H711612 fitting into this production as it has the early Boston marking protocol..

While my production years opinion (1908-1913) varies from Mike's, I too expected more production. Lost in action is a viable thoery but one would expect that at least one of the higher numbers would have returned if there were indeed higher numbers produced.

Edgar, I think that yours is a very early production razor - more to come on that shortly.

Cheers, George

 

[nuclearblast]

Edgar, I think that yours is a very early production razor - more to come on that shortly.

Cool ... Looking forward to reading it.

 

[mjclark]

After cleaning my H series up (with bicarb, aluminium foil and boiling water, which has worked brilliantly) it turns out that it not only has the Diamond and "Known the world over" on the underside of the top cap but also on the upper side of the baseplate, and neither are visible when the razor is closed.

So I've read through this thread but am still unsure about the date and origins of the H series.
From what period is my razor most likely to come?
Is the theory that E,F,G and H ran concurrently so my H0... serial is an earlier rather than later model?

 

[MacDaddy]

I was under the assumption that G-in-D stands for "Gillette in Diamond," or is it something else?

Just so everyone's clear, no, that's not what we're talking about when we say the "G-inside-D mark." What we're talking about there are the smaller hallmark-type marks like this:

Not speaking for Porter, and I agree that the G-in-D correlates with the European market. However I am not so sure the mark was required by law. From what I understand marking silver plate was voluntary. If Gillette did it simply because customers expected it, that comes to about the same thing. But it means the symbol probably was not registered anywhere, and could be changed at will. I think that helps explain some discrepancies.

From what I can find it does seem that it was a legal requirement, but that enforcement may have been somewhat scatter-shot, particularly by the time we get to Gillette's use of the mark. It seems that the requirement was simplified in 1860 to require the maker's mark -- "initials or other private mark" -- in a square. It is mentioned here in The French Treaty and Tariff of 1860, edited by H. Reader Lack, Esq.:

View attachment 483437

Thanks or that information dpm802. That is the only example so far found with that placement for the logo.

No, that's pretty much the normal placement for these. All the razors marked "Double" in the "Diamond Logo" column over on the wiki page are like dpm's describing with the diamond logo on the top of the guard plate and on the underside of the cap. What may be confusing here is dpm's originally referring to the diamond logo as the "G-in-D" mark.

 

[Domminigan]

I am a bit late to the party. Mine has only "Made in England" and the diamond logo under the guard. The case has the diamond logo and "known the world over" no patent numbers and no serial number. Unusual wood "horseshoe" case too.

 

[MacDaddy]

I am a bit late to the party. Mine has only "Made in England" and the diamond logo under the guard. The case has the diamond logo and "known the world over" no patent numbers and no serial number. Unusual wood "horseshoe" case too.

That one would be a post-patent example that would have been made in the Slough plant during the '20s.

 

[mblakele]

Just to bump this thread, I've just acquired a Single Ring with serial no. H084520 around the base of the handle, B.R.PAT. No 2876302 around top of inner tube and diamond logo with "known the world over" under the top cap but no baseplate markings.

So am I right in thinking that we still can't date any of these firmly and can only say with confidence that they are pre-1919?

After cleaning my H series up (with bicarb, aluminium foil and boiling water, which has worked brilliantly) it turns out that it not only has the Diamond and "Known the world over" on the underside of the top cap but also on the upper side of the baseplate, and neither are visible when the razor is closed.

So I've read through this thread but am still unsure about the date and origins of the H series.
From what period is my razor most likely to come?
Is the theory that E,F,G and H ran concurrently so my H0... serial is an earlier rather than later model?

Thanks for the data. I added it to Gillette_England_Dating_Information. Please check it to make sure I have it correct. Yours does not have a star mark nor a G-in-D mark? Usually those would be on the underside of the guard plate, if present.

The short answer to your question is that we know very little about these razors, and this thread is a place to talk about them. Much of what you read here will be speculation. For example I would speculate that your razor was made 1910-1915, just based on the diamond logo and what I think we have learned about the Leicester plant. But that is just a semi-educated guess, at least as likely to be wrong as right.