ID help

[skipnord]

I bought this razor from Ben Dawson, who bought it from someone else here.
There are no numbers or writing on the razor. One blade case has the Gillette diamond and name on both sides, and "Gillette Blades" on the top. The other blade case just has "Gillette Blades" on the top. The set appears to be nickle, and may be replated. The case is brown imitation leather with a purple lining - Gillette is in script inside the cover, NOT the usual diamond. Any id help will be appreciated. It is a lovely razor!

 

[skipnord]

Here is the last photo.

 

[Telecaster52]

Single Ring Old type

 

[skipnord]

Does the lack of a serial number on the head or the barrel tell me anything about the year? Also, any guesses about the plating?

 

[Oldguy]

I bought this razor from Ben Dawson, who bought it from someone else here.
There are no numbers or writing on the razor. One blade case has the Gillette diamond and name on both sides, and "Gillette Blades" on the top. The other blade case just has "Gillette Blades" on the top. The set appears to be nickle, and may be replated. The case is brown imitation leather with a purple lining - Gillette is in script inside the cover, NOT the usual diamond. Any id help will be appreciated. It is a lovely razor!

Interesting set. It certainly appears to be a Gillette Single Ring. My guess is since it has no print at all on the handle or comb that it has been sanded clean and replated. The other option is that it's a clone, but I don't think so.

The Gillette Diamond and Arrow trademark was not used by Gillette prior to 1908. The first version of the script case had the Gillette script printed on a black leather background. It also had black, heavy cardboard blade cases.

The second version of the case is like yours. The Script was printed on a velvet background. The set was also furnished with metal blade cases but without the Gillette Diamond.

I have both Script sets and they are as described. The sets had the Single Ring razor. My oldest Script set razor was made in 1906.

This is a very nice set to own and to use even if it is not original.

Len

 

[skipnord]

Thanks, Len. I'm guessing you a correct about replating. Looks like silver would have been original, and the razor and cases appear to be nickle. The Gillette marked blade case may not be original. It is a lovely set, however, and I a very happy to have it in my small collection. Thanks again.

 

[Oldguy]

Thanks, Len. I'm guessing you a correct about replating. Looks like silver would have been original, and the razor and cases appear to be nickle. The Gillette marked blade case may not be original. It is a lovely set, however, and I a very happy to have it in my small collection. Thanks again.

It's really hard to say if the Diamond marked blade case is original or not. The set could have been made in the transition period when Gillette released the diamond trademark in 1908. It's hard to tell. Your set appears to be in really nice shape. I just wish that the guys that replate their razors would disclose it when they sell them. What you can do is not polish the razor and see if the silver patina shows up in a few months, if it is silver and not nickel.

Len

 

[Chester]

As I look at the inner tube, where we'd probably expect to see a serial number, there's obvious brassing. I suppose the handle-and-comb piece might have been replated, but looking at the first couple pics, it's hard to tell. What is the confirming evidence that the razor has been replated?
Thanks,
-- Chet

 

[skipnord]

Just guessing it was replated, based on the near perfect finish and lack of serial numbers. It is always possible it is a clone in a Gillette box --- I doubt that, but have no back up data to prove it. It was sold to Ben by another member of B and B, so if he/she happens to read this, perhaps they could chime in with more info. I really am not all that concerned about it - just curious. I don't personally have a problem with replating or mixing and matching, as long as it is disclosed, if known.

 

[Oldguy]

As I look at the inner tube, where we'd probably expect to see a serial number, there's obvious brassing. I suppose the handle-and-comb piece might have been replated, but looking at the first couple pics, it's hard to tell. What is the confirming evidence that the razor has been replated?
Thanks,
-- Chet

Only the early Single Rings had the ser# on the inner handle. The later ones had the number on the blade guard. I don't know when the change over was but my 1906 is on the tube and my 1915 is on the guard. I don't expect the razor is original to the case. To me the handle and the cap look very shiny like nickel.

Len

 

[Radar O\'Reilly]

Can we get a close up of the head? It looks like the teeth don't end in a slant, but are flat at the ends. Also, it appears to be milling marks on the inner tube piece. Perhaps is it copy?

 

[skipnord]

Hi Jim
If the razor is oriented vertically, the teeth are cut at 90 degrees to the ground.
Does that make sense? In other words, they are at an angle to the curved head, not cut square. The comb is thinner that a 20's Old I compared it to. The inner tube appears to have been machined - it has concentric machine marks 90 degrees to the length of the shaft. There are also a couple of odd milling marks on the ends of the comb - one on one end and two on the other, at right angles to the curved surface. Like I said earlier, I don't care what the razors' lineage is, I'm just curious by nature. Thanks for your input.

 

[Oldguy]

The concentric rings on the inner tube are exactly how the Single Ring tube looks. So far it still looks legit.

Len

 

[eyeguy]

Those combs don't look quite right to me. They seem blunt & don't taper at all the best I can see. The rest of the razor looks exactly like a Gillette however. The knurling looks just right, the marks between the 3 posts look just right, & the marks on the inner handle all look just right. If its a clone, its a very well made clone!!

 

[skipnord]

I am off for a while. When I get back I'll photograph the ends of the combs, and measure the thickness of the head and the comb. Stay 'tooned!

 

[skipnord]

Ok. no pictures, but I compared the head and comb to the pictures in Telecaster's post, and I agree that the teeth are not as tapered at the end. I measured the thickness of the head at 1.5mm, and the comb at 1.58mm, at the thickest point. I don't know if this will help or not. I'm not sure if the teeth were modified during the replating/repair process, or if we are looking at a well made clone. The case and the blade cases appear to be genuine Gillette. The mystery deepens!

 

[Radar O\'Reilly]

Ok. no pictures, but I compared the head and comb to the pictures in Telecaster's post, and I agree that the teeth are not as tapered at the end. I measured the thickness of the head at 1.5mm, and the comb at 1.58mm, at the thickest point. I don't know if this will help or not. I'm not sure if the teeth were modified during the replating/repair process, or if we are looking at a well made clone. The case and the blade cases appear to be genuine Gillette. The mystery deepens!

I don't think anyone would modify the teeth during replating/repair. Especially if Gillette/anyone professional did the repair. I mean, it's part of the razors function.

If I had to guess, I would bet that since Gillette's patent was really on the head of the razor, the body could be copied, but the head would have to be different. Just using my blurry photo examination skills, it almost looks like the teeth look like a "1" on it's side sticking out. I seem to see a faint "barb" at the ends of the teeth. But it's late, hot, and my laptop doesn't have the greatest resolution, so I could be wrong.