Price of double rings going up?

[VALevey]

I was watching this on the 'bay and the price to me seems high, doesn't it?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-ANTIQU...ScM4UPFYjSV1RN8RL67NY%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

I mean, the handle needs epoxy! I feel like bidders really went nuts here. What does everyone think?

 

[MacDaddy]

The closing price on that surprised me a bit, too, but it did have some things going for it. Being one of the earliest serial numbers I've seen and still a "patent applied for" model would make it an early 1904, which would be of interest to some folks even with the cracked barrel.

 

[VALevey]

I recognize those attributes as being quite positive. Looked like the teeth were all straight, and just needed a good cleaning. But still there was no case, and the handle was broken. It just surprises me.

 

[elmerwood]

This one sold at around the same time. I've been luck and picked up both of mine for under $100 with cases.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/281070068421?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

 

[MacDaddy]

Just pulling some pics over for posterity, since I hate running into these old threads after the eBay links have died. Also, for reference, the auction closed at $262.34 plus postage.

 

[VALevey]

Thanks for posting the pictures! And wow. It just floors me that people will pay that much! I understand the significance, and they're absolutely wonderful shavers, but that's just so much.

 

[ras120]

Yep, prices have more than "doubled" in recent years.

 

[jbradley]

I was watching it also. It got way too high for me. I was willing to go around $150. Still more than I would like, but it would be worth it to have a DR. But not what it went for.

 

[shavefreak]

it's #78! thats not bad - I think what the first 52 were un numbered so that makes this the 130th razor manufactured in the entire Gillette line! And a friggin fat boy/toggle is up in that range so I think it is a good price.

 

[AceByTerror]

No it's in the 7000 range. The following two numbers just didn't punch through hard, but there's evidence they are there

 

[shavefreak]

Ahhh then ok a bit high then. I saw a double ring over the weekend that was cleaned and polished to perfection go for $200.00 no case. I was suprised a bit on that one.

No it's in the 7000 range. The following two numbers just didn't punch through hard, but there's evidence they are there

 

[MacDaddy]

No it's in the 7000 range. The following two numbers just didn't punch through hard, but there's evidence they are there

Yeah, if I were forced to I would guess 7862 from the bit of an impression that each of the last two left, but there are definitely two other digits there.

 

[VALevey]

it's #78! thats not bad - I think what the first 52 were un numbered so that makes this the 130th razor manufactured in the entire Gillette line! And a friggin fat boy/toggle is up in that range so I think it is a good price.

Wait. Really? Do you have a source that says that the unnumbered razors were the first 52? I have an unnumbered double ring...

 

[MacDaddy]

Wait. Really? Do you have a source that says that the unnumbered razors were the first 52? I have an unnumbered double ring...

There's a couple different things getting mixed up here. Accounts of Gillette's sales figures included 51 sets sold in 1903. (Although there is some amount of confusion and disagreement in the record about this number. See the December 31, 1903 entry and its footnotes on the Gillette Timeline page over on the wiki for more.) Serial numbering didn't start until sometime during 1904, and it's estimated that around 55,000 sets were made before that point.

 

[shavefreak]

Hmmmm if a company sells 51 units in year one and have 54949 units left. Why would they manufacture anything in year 2? but 51 seems off I suspect they gave away many to sell blades and and get the word out. It would make sense that many thousands would not have serial numbers or they added numbers to left over runs from 1903.

Bad judgement on my part to infer the first 51 were the only ones without serial numbers that would be an extremely remote possiblilty and I have not researched anything just speculating and talking.

I would think with 51 sold and say a few thousand given away there was lots of stock in 1904 to put numbers on making any non numbered razor a 1903 for sure and very early. I believe the 1904 says pat. applied for plus a ser. no making the 1903 identified by no ser. number and no pat. applied for.

I would be really curious to know if there are non numbered double rings with pat. appld. or serial number razors without pat appld.

There's a couple different things getting mixed up here. Accounts of Gillette's sales figures included 51 sets sold in 1903. (Although there is some amount of confusion and disagreement in the record about this number. See the December 31, 1903 entry and its footnotes on the Gillette Timeline page over on the wiki for more.) Serial numbering didn't start until sometime during 1904, and it's estimated that around 55,000 sets were made before that point.

 

[alex2363]

This one sold at around the same time. I've been luck and picked up both of mine for under $100 with cases.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/281070068421?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

It had only one bid too........
Winning bid:
US $199.99
[ 1 bid

 

[shavefreak]

yeah I was surprised it sold with a crack too. Not the best purchase patience will reward a better price.

 

[alex2363]

Hmmmm if a company sells 51 units in year one and have 54949 units left. Why would they manufacture anything in year 2? but 51 seems off I suspect they gave away many to sell blades and and get the word out. It would make sense that many thousands would not have serial numbers or they added numbers to left over runs from 1903.

Bad judgement on my part to infer the first 51 were the only ones without serial numbers that would be an extremely remote possiblilty and I have not researched anything just speculating and talking.

I would think with 51 sold and say a few thousand given away there was lots of stock in 1904 to put numbers on making any non numbered razor a 1903 for sure and very early. I believe the 1904 says pat. applied for plus a ser. no making the 1903 identified by no ser. number and no pat. applied for.

I would be really curious to know if there are non numbered double rings with pat. appld. or serial number razors without pat appld.

In1903 annual production was 494 and not numbered. 1904 annual production was 100,000 and 50,000 not numbered.

All razors made prior to November 5th 1904 were marked "Pat. App. For" . Gillette estimates that 55 thousand of these were not numbered at all. In mid 1904 the number system began at #1 and went to #25,424. At this time Mr Pelham patents were issued and the #25,424 sequence wasmarked with "Pat. Nov. 05" Gillette kept with this marking through 1904 ending with #45,424.

 

[alex2363]

Hmmmm if a company sells 51 units in year one and have 54949 units left. Why would they manufacture anything in year 2? but 51 seems off I suspect they gave away many to sell blades and and get the word out. It would make sense that many thousands would not have serial numbers or they added numbers to left over runs from 1903.

Bad judgement on my part to infer the first 51 were the only ones without serial numbers that would be an extremely remote possiblilty and I have not researched anything just speculating and talking.

I would think with 51 sold and say a few thousand given away there was lots of stock in 1904 to put numbers on making any non numbered razor a 1903 for sure and very early. I believe the 1904 says pat. applied for plus a ser. no making the 1903 identified by no ser. number and no pat. applied for.

I would be really curious to know if there are non numbered double rings with pat. appld. or serial number razors without pat appld.

True, the number system was based on razors sold and many were not sold to merit the number. Gillette also used the number system to keep track of the razors in general for maintenance and legal precautions.

 

[shavefreak]

Great info Alex, where did you get it?. With 494 made and 51 sold in year 1 what in the heck made them go for 100,000 in year 2? That must have been some meeting.


Pertaining to you quote when you said all razors you mean all razors starting in 1904 correct? I thought the 1903's had nothing on them?. So basically there is no way to tell a 1903 double ring vs say a February 1904 double.

All razors made prior to November 5th 1904 were marked "Pat. App. For" . Gillette estimates that 55 thousand of these were not numbered at all. In mid 1904 the number system began at #1 and went to #25,424. At this time Mr Pelham patents were issued and the #25,424 sequence wasmarked with "Pat. Nov. 05" Gillette kept with this marking through 1904 ending with #45,424.