What's new

Gillette Single Rings with British Patent Numbers

Please do enter it for me.

Thank you,
Bob
Dragonmaster
Done Bob


$Screenshot_2015-06-15-00-05-15.jpg
 
Nice score Bob. This, 3 Double Rings and the English New Standard give you an enviable collection.

I have to disagree with Edgar on a couple of points. It seems to me that your Single Ring is the lowest E series number so far rather than the second lowest. Also, I would date it to the second half of 1908 in line with my speculative theory, which I must add is vehemently opposed by others as lacking evidence and who favour other speculative theories which also lack evidence.

Of particular interest on your razor is the patent number, which is the augmented US patent and the second to appear in the early E series. It was originally spectulated by Porter that the E, F and H series were made in parallel for different markets (England, France and Germany). Then razors in these series started appearing with the augmented US patent. Best guess at the time was that the French objected to the English patent so the neutral alternative was adopted. But the appearance of this patent on another razor supposedly made for the English market must give us cause to reconsider all the speculated theories.

There is no actual hard evidence that any razors were made at Leicester. The circumstantial evidence for razor production at Leicester applies equally to there having been razor production at Paris and Berlin. Razors in the B series were produced in the US with an English patent and there is no hard evidence that the E, F and H series did not fall into the same category. It is only by deductive reasoning that the various speculated theories have been offered as possibilities. At this time I am sticking to my theory as the most likely pending the discovery of additional evidence, but acknowledge that other theories are equally valid and equally speculative.

Alex, has your friend been able to acquire and additional evidence on this subject?

Cheers, George
 
Alex,

Might I take the liberty of respectfully requesting that you modify your entry in the Wiki to include in the serial number the blank between the E and the 9, as this would normally be a zero in these series, and to change the text colour to red to distinguish it as having the different marking protocol.

Cheers, George
 
Last edited:
I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I saw a lower E series at the bottom of the page.

Yes, but that is in the "others" section and does not conform with the "English" marking protocols. More likely to have been made in the US in 1917. The augmented US patent on that one is a puzzle. No one has come up with a viable theory on that patent.

Cheers, George
 
Last edited:
Yes, but that is in the "others" section and does not conform with the "English" marking protocols. More likely to have been made in the US in 1917. The augmented US patent on that one is a puzzle. No one has come up with a viable theory on that patent.

Cheers, George
Hmmm ... now I'm confused. The only difference is that it has the serial number stamped on the inner barrel, Bob's razor is stamped on the guard.

But, wouldn't a 1917 US made Single Ring have the serial number on the guard, not to mention the trademark and "Made in USA"?

Why is it considered an anomaly instead of a very early English razor?
 
Hmmm ... now I'm confused. The only difference is that it has the serial number stamped on the inner barrel, Bob's razor is stamped on the guard.

But, wouldn't a 1917 US made Single Ring have the serial number on the guard, not to mention the trademark and "Made in USA"?

Why is it considered an anomaly instead of a very early English razor?

You're quite right. It MAY be a razor made around 1907 when there were many anomolies with patents for razors made in the US for the european market. On reflection it is probably valid to speculate that it is far more likely than 1917. However it doesn't fit the protocols that we are speculating were British, or European, manufacture. Perhaps the key lies in the reason why an "N" was added to the US patent for some razors? Gillette needed to change their marking protocol to accomodate the ball ends and pocket editions. It appears that the front runners in that change were the razors destined for the european market. Whether they were manufacturer in the US or in Europe remains unproved. The other un-answered questions are:

1. Why the "N" on the US patent?

2. Why change the marking protocol again after the original change?

Cheers, George
 
We may never know, George.

But the theories are certainly interesting and I admire you for all the effort and time spent trying to figure it out.
 
We may never know, George.

But the theories are certainly interesting and I admire you for all the effort and time spent trying to figure it out.

Thanks Edgar. While I have spent a considerable amount of time on collecting for the database, the credit and vote of thanks for most of the historical research must go to Porter, Mike and Alex. The fact that we disagree on the interpretation of some of that research is neither here nor there (IMHO) as it serves to promote discussion and the barnstorming of ideas and deductive reasoning.

Cheers, George
 
Dear Porter, Mike, Alex, Edgar, et al ----

Thank you one and all for your continued delving into razor archeology!
This historic information is certainly (at least to me) what makes razor
collecting so interesting and special a hobby.

I am certain that time will clarify this mystery as more razors surface.
What I do not understand, is why, with King Gillette's known penchant
for numbering razors, are there not logs that record these razors?

Again,
Thank you,

Bob
Dragonmaster
 
Alex,

Might I take the liberty of respectfully requesting that you modify your entry in the Wiki to include in the serial number the blank between the E and the 9, as this would normally be a zero in these series, and to change the text colour to red to distinguish it as having the different marking protocol.

Cheers, George
Ok George, done.

$Screenshot_2015-06-16-23-23-39.jpg
 
You're quite right. It MAY be a razor made around 1907 when there were many anomolies with patents for razors made in the US for the european market. On reflection it is probably valid to speculate that it is far more likely than 1917. However it doesn't fit the protocols that we are speculating were British, or European, manufacture. Perhaps the key lies in the reason why an "N" was added to the US patent for some razors? Gillette needed to change their marking protocol to accomodate the ball ends and pocket editions. It appears that the front runners in that change were the razors destined for the european market. Whether they were manufacturer in the US or in Europe remains unproved. The other un-answered questions are:

1. Why the "N" on the US patent?

2. Why change the marking protocol again after the original change?

Cheers, George
Those are very good questions, I been away bussiness and don't have access to my home PC which has much of my past references. But I will be trying to see further on your thoughts and theories. Edgar also has some relevant insight that adds to the intrigue.
 
Dear Porter, Mike, Alex, Edgar, et al ----

Thank you one and all for your continued delving into razor archeology!
This historic information is certainly (at least to me) what makes razor
collecting so interesting and special a hobby.

I am certain that time will clarify this mystery as more razors surface.
What I do not understand, is why, with King Gillette's known penchant
for numbering razors, are there not logs that record these razors?

Again,
Thank you,

Bob
Dragonmaster
King Gillette was more of an owner that didn't have much control or say, especially as the company went world wide and it became a powerful conglomerate. The international variety of Gillette cultures, rules, policies, regulations, and different business models all added to the confusion and mysteries.

The varying identifying and classifying of DE manufacturing/production from these different international Gillette corporations has made it difficult to find a final conclusion to many of the theories that we come up with. MacDaddy, George, Mike and many others have great theories that are viable, but it's not an easy task to try to make them stick since new developments keep coming up.
 
What I do not understand, is why, with King Gillette's known penchant
for numbering razors, are there not logs that record these razors?
Bob
Dragonmaster

Bob, I'm sure that logs were kept that have just not been located as yet. I think the fact that they have not been found in the US when other logs have been lends more creedence to the possibility that the logs, and therefore the manufacture, was in Britain or Europe or both. We can only hope that they will turn up, unless they were destroyed around WW1.

You and George have done an outstanding job.....many would agree.

Alex, thank you for your kind words. I hate to be pedantic but looking at Bob's photo it appears that there is a leading blank rather than a leading zero in the serial number. In the case of these razors a leading blank is the protocol for US made serial numbers while a leading zero was only used for the British/European razors, so it could be important in establishing origin.

Cheers, George
 
Top Bottom