Single Ring Replica....right, or?

[shm]

I know I would have to be more than lucky if this one is a Gillette, but one can always hope.

I think this is a replica of a Gillette Single Ring but would like a confirmation if possible.
The razor is a part of a Gentleman's travelling set.

I can't find any markings or stamps on the razor, thus making me think its a copy.

More pictures can be found here: http://www.shm.dk/shave/21 single ring replica.htm


Thanks Gent's

 

[RichGem]

Looks like a Gillette NEW Improved "big boy," not an Old Type.

 

[T Rick]

Looks like a Gillette NEW Improved "big boy," not an Old Type.

I don't think so. The New Improved had the thick, flat head base with the comb angled downward (at least my Big Fellow does). This one has a curved head base, as the Old Type should.

Looks beautiful and correct to my noob eyes, but I've got lots to learn yet (though a knock off back in the day seems feasible, I've never seen/heard of one in my short time as a collector). Fingers crossed that you have good luck here!

Any numbers on the barrel of the retaining nut? (If not, still could be 1930's Old Type).

ETA: FWIW, my recently acquired Canadian Single Ring has no Maker's mark either.

 

[shm]

Right,

but is it a Gillette at all?

and since I'm still in grammar school DE-wise, how can one tell the difference?

I just took this picture to compare it with my 1907 Single Ring, and they look very much the same, although on close inspection, the grooves at the end of the handle seems deeper in the replica.
It is the Single Ring to the left.

 

[T Rick]

Lol! That's what we get with a bunch of us noob collectors...

I guess we'll have to wait for some of the really knowledgeable folks to chime in and set us right. In the mean time, I do see the differences, the grooves also look wider. And the neck has a bit different profile. Could be there were subtle changes over the model's run? Don't know. I do know mine dates to 1912, and looks more like the one on the left.

No numbers on the barrel? Maybe they made them without confused but according to the Wiki, the model ended in 1921, and numbers ran through 1929

 

[shm]

No numbers, marks, stamps or anything on the razor. That is why I'm thinking its a copy. All other (Gillette) razors I've seen has been marked in some way.

The "copy" though, is of just as high standard as Gillette. I've got another NN, and that shows clearly in the finish that its a copy (but still fun to have).


A couple more pics, still the SR to the left

 

[heirkb]

How come the one that's supposed to be a Gillette isn't marked Gillette under the head? All the Single Rings I've encountered are marked under the head.
As for the other razor, it definitely looks to be a replica. The wide grooves which you pointed out are the giveaway. I can't prove it, but I'm pretty certain

P.S. Hope you're still enjoying that Ranger!

 

[shm]

I love the Ranger, thanks

I have a 1919 SR as well, and it is marked with Gillette under the head.

The (now supposed) 1907 has the number A15011 on the barrel, and on the end of the handle it says: BR. PAT. No. 28 763CF02.
Don't tell me its a Frankenrazor

 

[Oldguy]

I have a 1905 Double Ring and a 1906 Single ring. Neither razor is stamped Gillette. The DR has wider groves in the handle tip, the SR does not. Both razors have the sn on the inside handle tube.

Len

 

[heirkb]

I have a 1905 Double Ring and a 1906 Single ring. Neither razor is stamped Gillette. The DR has wider groves in the handle tip, the SR does not. Both razors have the sn on the inside handle tube.

Len

Very interesting. Didn't know that some of these were not marked Gillette. Good to know

 

[Oldguy]

Very interesting. Didn't know that some of these were not marked Gillette. Good to know

I have 3 other Single Rings, 1911, 1916 and 1920. They all have the Gillette diamond trade mark. Not surprising since Gillette implemented the diamond in 1908 I believe.

Len

 

[shm]

I have a 1905 Double Ring and a 1906 Single ring. Neither razor is stamped Gillette. The DR has wider groves in the handle tip, the SR does not. Both razors have the sn on the inside handle tube.

Len

You can almost hear my sigh of relief, I was beginning to believe it was a fake - the 1907 that is.

How about the one I think is a replica, any suggestions?

 

[Oldguy]

.........
How about the one I think is a replica, any suggestions?

This is only a guess. You could have the handle tip from a Double Ring. My DR end looks identical to your (replica) except the end that goes inside looks to be more rounded at the end. The lack of serial number can also be explained as the DR did not have serial numbers until after 1904. Are there any patent numbers on the main handle? Or a Pat. App. For. ? It should as the SR was introduced in 1905. If not then the chances it is a replica becomes more a possibility.

Len

 

[T Rick]

Looking closer at your comparison pic, I think you're correct that it's a "clone". The neck contours just don't look right, and the finish looks quite different from your 1907 (I presume if you had the serial number on the barrel you'd have mentioned it after OldGuy's post).

While browsing some older threads, I found this one, discussing clones. Wasn't aware they existed, but have a look at the first one pictured. The retaining nut looks like yours, though the positioning pins are much too rounded, and the neck looks closer to the real thing to me.

I was unaware there were lookalikes out there prior to this thread. Thanks for opening my eyes!

 

[shm]

Looking closer at your comparison pic, I think you're correct that it's a "clone". The neck contours just don't look right, and the finish looks quite different from your 1907 (I presume if you had the serial number on the barrel you'd have mentioned it after OldGuy's post).

While browsing some older threads, I found this one, discussing clones. Wasn't aware they existed, but have a look at the first one pictured. The retaining nut looks like yours, though the positioning pins are much too rounded, and the neck looks closer to the real thing to me.

I was unaware there were lookalikes out there prior to this thread. Thanks for opening my eyes!

You're right it has no serial no. When it come to markings it is absolutely clean, I don't think even FBI could get anything out of this

Great post you've found, and according to the definition in that, this must qualify as a clone its resemblance is so close to the original it is minute details that distinguish them from eachother.

In my comparison quest I discovered that the number of teeth and their spacing is the same. This is not the case with another NN I have.
Again the original to the left.