What's new

PAT.NOV.15.04.N on Single Ring handle. What means the "N" after the date?

I´ve found this nice 1909 Single Ring set. The handle says PAT.NOV.15.04.N
That "N" is new for me. Knows anybody what the "N" means? It´s a US set for the french market with G in D stamp. Is that the reason?

$1909 Single Ring USA-England-02.jpg

$1909 Single Ring USA-England-03.jpg

$1909 Single Ring USA-England-09.jpg

$1909 Single Ring USA-England-13.jpg
 
hmm, I´m a little bit confused. This thread mentioned your PAT.NOV.15.04.N razor. My razor shows the serial number F 59 205. But I thought it´s a bad stamp and means B 59 204. If that´s a US serial number, it would date him to 1909. That looks right about the design of the razor, the Script trade mark case and the 1908 instruction

$1909 Single Ring USA-England-10.jpg
 
Yes, that's the the thread.
It's a bit long and maybe it's hard to find the comments now ... but apparently the best guess is that at the time the French really preferred not seeing British Patent numbers ... :lol: So the British used the US patent and added the N suffix on some razors, the case still has the British Patent on the bottom though.

There are still oddities, but I find them manageable. For example it seems plausible, if unproven, that Leicester marked the F razors "PAT.NOV.15.04.N" to avoid the appearance of British imperialism.

My razor also came from France and the serial # also has the F prefix:

$CAM01057.jpg

Other theory suggests that the F razors were made in France, E razors in England and H razors in Germany, but no solid evidence to back up that theory.
AFAIK, they still didn't figure out how to date these English Single Rings, but they seem to agree that they were made between early 1909 and 1913.

$CAM01599.jpg
 
Last edited:
The short version, as Edgar's already said, is that we're really not sure what the "N" represents there. Yours is a particularly interesting one, though, because it pulls this style of marking back even earlier than Edgar's example above. It's also curious that your serial number is space-padded, where incuso's earlier F-series example possibly had a zero-padded serial number -- unfortunately the original images were remotely hosted and are no longer available to double check.

Does your case have the British patent declaration on the bottom as well, Achim?
 
The short version, as Edgar's already said, is that we're really not sure what the "N" represents there. Yours is a particularly interesting one, though, because it pulls this style of marking back even earlier than Edgar's example above. It's also curious that your serial number is space-padded, where incuso's earlier F-series example possibly had a zero-padded serial number -- unfortunately the original images were remotely hosted and are no longer available to double check.

Does your case have the British patent declaration on the bottom as well, Achim?

no, there are no patent informations under the case.
 
​Wow I can't believe Mr. Razor has a question..................I am a new guy but I always go to Mr Razor site to awnser my questions. hooray for Badger and blade.................
 
​Wow I can't believe Mr. Razor has a question..................I am a new guy but I always go to Mr Razor site to awnser my questions. hooray for Badger and blade.................

the most what I know, I´ve learned on B&B - great forum!
 
hmm, I´m a little bit confused. This thread mentioned your PAT.NOV.15.04.N razor. My razor shows the serial number F 59 205. But I thought it´s a bad stamp and means B 59 204. If that´s a US serial number, it would date him to 1909. That looks right about the design of the razor, the Script trade mark case and the 1908 instruction

but apparently the best guess is that at the time the French really preferred not seeing British Patent numbers ... :lol: So the British used the US patent and added the N suffix on some razors

Other theory suggests that the F razors were made in France, E razors in England and H razors in Germany, but no solid evidence to back up that theory.

I think we are all a little confused about these razors Achim. I have added the details of your razor to the Wiki.

As chief proponent of the last mentioned theory, my proposition is that some of the F and H series were made in Paris and Berlin, namely the ones bearing the US marking protocol (patent on outer barrel, ser# on guard plate) shown in red on the Wiki. There is historical reference to factories briefly producing razors in Paris and Berlin around 1909. There is also unsubstantiated conjecture that those factories produced only blades. There is speculation that if razors were produced in those locations then they would have been marked with their own country's patents, but the conjecture for this arbitrary stipulation is not supported by historical precedent. If the historical statements made by KCG, Marshall and the German court are to be discredited, then said rebuttals should at least be supported by accompanying historical evidence.

I am proposing that the simplest solution is that factories were established in Paris and Berlin under the control of the English company and producing razors bearing the English patent. It would seem that, for whatever reason, but possibly because the French may have objected to the distinctly British patent, the patent on the F series was at first dropped and then an augmented US patent adopted which did not have any nationalistic connotation. My proposal is that the European factories produced razors for a very short period after which production was pulled back to Leicester and the new marking protocol introduced.

Looking at the Wiki (http://wiki.badgerandblade.com/Gillette_England_Dating_Information) it can be seen that incuso's razor is the only one of the "F" series found so far with a British patent (possibly pre-French outrage??), and that the only Pat.Nov.15.04.N patent not on an F series is the earliest E series example that would presumably have been made, after incuso's razor, in England for the French market. It is odd, as Porter points out, that Achim's razor does not follow the leading zeroes protocol of all the other examples.

IMHO, the script trademark case, the 1908 instruction and the early F serial number lead me to suspect that Achim's razor may have been made in Paris in 1908. Just my opinion.

Cheers, George
 
the most what I know, I´ve learned on B&B - great forum!

thanks all for your help

Achim, speaking for myself, and I think all B&B members, most of what I know has been gained from your Mr Razor site. We all owe you an immense debt of gratitude. Thank you.

On a more current note, is there anything in the 1908 instruction that accompanied your razor that may provide a clue as to the place of manufacture of your razor...like perhaps.... is it in French?

Cheers, George
 
As chief proponent of the last mentioned theory, my proposition is that some of the F and H series were made in Paris and Berlin, namely the ones bearing the US marking protocol (patent on outer barrel, ser# on guard plate) shown in red on the Wiki. There is historical reference to factories briefly producing razors in Paris and Berlin around 1909.

This may or may not be important, but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I'd think that if they ever produced razors in Paris and Berlin, the French and German ads from that period would have mentioned it, instead of mentioning the factories in Boston and London, and the German company E.F. Grell, Importhaus - Hamburg, that imported the razors to Germany?

Here's the 1911 German ad and one from 1909.

French ad too, with the address in London.

For the record, I'm well aware that you know FAR more about this, I just find it weird, if indeed they produced razors in France and Germany why they kept mentioning only Boston and London, or the company that imported the razors.

And btw,I'm not saying your theory is wrong, I'm asking you what you think about this. :tongue_sm
proxy.php
 
Last edited:
I'd think that if they ever produced razors in Paris and Berlin, the French and German ads from that period would have mentioned it, instead of mentioning the factories in Boston and London, and the German company E.F. Grell, Importhaus - Hamburg, that imported the razors to Germany?

Here's the 1911 German ad and one from 1909.

French ad too, with the address in London.

For the record, I'm well aware that you know FAR more about this, I just find it weird, if indeed they produced razors in France and Germany why they kept mentioning only Boston and London, or the company that imported the razors.

And btw,I'm not saying your theory is wrong, I'm asking you what you think about this. :tongue_sm

Thanks for the links Edgar. I'm not saying that my theory is right, but to me it seems to be the simplest and most logical of the alternatives, and the one supported by primary and secondary historical sources. But in the end, each of us has to make up their mind with regard to presented evidence.

The 1911 ad is easy to explain - the continental factories were long gone by then. Same for the French ad if that is 1910. The 1909 German ad could be the same case if it was from late 1909 as the German trademark court case states the that factory was closed in 1909 but does not define a date in that year. It is interesting that the Single Ring in the 1909 Ad actually bears the PAT.NOV.15.04 patent...can't see if the ".N" is there too.

There are many references to factories in France and Germany shown in the "Gillette Single Rings with British Patent Numbers" thread, but the most primary is the patent case so I'll just cut and paste a comment from the above thread.

"I believe that the trademark case is an important piece of primary evidence as it is a court report rather than a series of remembrances and the case dates back to 1910. The court established that the business of the Berlin company was “the manufacture and sale of safety razors and similar goods”. The court stipulates that the registration of the trademark occurred in 1908 and that in 1909 the manufacture part of the business was discontinued and PART of the equipment to London. The complainant alleged that Gillette’s business was a sham “from the first”. The court held that Gillette, from 1908, “did actually carry on a business in Germany, and used its mark on products of the same”. Unless there is hard evidence to the contrary I do not believe that, over 100 years later, we are entitled to second guess that court’s decision."

Cheers, George
 
I understand, btw there's also this 1908 German ad, same thing as the others:

proxy.php


Maybe I'll have to read your thread again one of these days.

But thanks for clarifying, George.
 
Last edited:
I understand, btw there's also this 1908 German ad, same thing as the others:

proxy.php


Maybe I'll have to read your thread again one of these days.

But thanks for clarifying, George.

It is difficult to interpret the contradictory evidence when we are removed by over 100 years, but my reading of Marshall's account and the trademark case leads me to think that the German factory was in production perhaps from only late 1908 to early/mid 1909. I see the brevity of the H series as additional evidence. If the possibility of production of razors on the continent is to be abandoned then doubt must cast upon the accounts of KCG, Marshall, the German court and the subsequent reports of other researchers over the years. My personal opinion is that the suppositions opposing this historical evidence do not offer sufficient persuasion in that regard, but again, that is just my opinion.

Cheers, George
 
...

On a more current note, is there anything in the 1908 instruction that accompanied your razor that may provide a clue as to the place of manufacture of your razor...like perhaps.... is it in French?

Cheers, George

the instruction is in English, German, Italian and French:

$HP-scan0188.jpg$HP-scan0189.jpg

$HP-scan0190.jpg$HP-scan0191.jpg
 

Thanks Achim.

It is interesting that the instruction sheet, which was presumably contempory with the razor, shows Paris and Berlin (not Hamburg) under the list of offices and factories. Leicester is not mentioned, and we have no way of knowing whether the locations mentioned fell under one category or the other or both. My personal opinion is that Paris was online early 1908 and Leicester mid 1908, but there is also an opinion elsewhere that London was used as Leicester was not all that well known.

Cheers, George
 
It is interesting that the instruction sheet, which was presumably contempory with the razor, shows Paris and Berlin (not Hamburg) under the list of offices and factories. Leicester is not mentioned, and we have no way of knowing whether the locations mentioned fell under one category or the other or both. My personal opinion is that Paris was online early 1908 and Leicester mid 1908, but there is also an opinion elsewhere that London was used as Leicester was not all that well known.

For Paris in particular, Gillette_Timeline cites good sources that a Paris factory was established late in 1905. But as with Berlin we do not know exactly what was produced in Paris, nor when. We can speculate, but there is not much to go on.

Here is an advert that distinguishes between offices and factories, and lists Berlin, Leicester, and Paris under the latter heading. But it has problems too.



This is dated April 1911. But we have good reason to believe Berlin discontinued whatever production it did — of razors or blades or both — by the end of 1909, and was not even functioning as a sales office after February 1910: http://books.google.com/books?id=fQw0AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA173 (Bulletin of the United States Trade-Mark Association, 1913).

Another example of perfidious advertising is http://books.google.com/books?id=ensiAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA41 (1909). This one is very specific about the Boston factory, but quite vague about others. All it tells us is that "factories have been established" in those places - a statement that is as true today as it ever was. But it tells us nothing about production.

So I consider advertising to be pretty poor evidence for questions like this. Primary sources are much better, as is physical evidence.
 
Top Bottom