What's new
  • Guest
    As per our long standing policy of not permitting medical advice on the forum - all threads concerning the Coronavirus will be locked.
    For more info on the coronavirus please see the link below:
    https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/summary.html

Wanton destruction

A ShakeSharp with twin blades is @jmudrick's best setup I believe.

I tried in my Grande. It didnt work very well with Polsilver blades.







As I understand it, the ShakeSharp stacks the blades differently and the edges align differently.
That's correct, at least the case in the Mk1.0.

Sent from my LG-US998 using Tapatalk
 
In all seriousness I hope the OP still reads this thread. Just so he knows we do like saving razors also. The cap was in really rough shape too. The ends were tweaked. That took some hand massaging along with the jig. I really need to make a cap jig to really dial it in.
 
In all seriousness I hope the OP still reads this thread. Just so he knows we do like saving razors also. The cap was in really rough shape too. The ends were tweaked. That took some hand massaging along with the jig. I really need to make a cap jig to really dial it in.
I would melt down a hundred old type brownies to fix one bell handle aristocrat. I don't think most people realize just how rare those are.

Edit: you make a cap jig and you could fix efsk's valencia slant. Of course, it wouldn't be a slant anymore.
 
Yes I could. I actually plan on taking that first old type I slantified to work tomorrow and see if I can get is straightened out. E67047B5-7E0D-463B-BCAD-F929F70F6202.jpeg
 
With all due respect, this one didn't get any better. The cap is almost beyond repair so I'd swap it out and bend the baseplate on its own.
The owner of that bell end said the razor was unusable. Looking at it now, at least it looks usable. It's at a point now where a re-plater might be able to restore it to something approaching its original grace and beauty.

I happen to agree about the top cap. Easier to swap it out, a bit harder to find a cheap donor single ring. But if a person was going to to all that, easier to just swap the whole head and braze it on. Which would take away the whole point of "restoring" it. From a collector's point of view it would just be another frankenrazor.
 
Last edited:
The owner of that bell end said the razor was unusable. Looking at it now, at least it looks usable. It's at a point now where a re-plater might be able to restore it to something approaching its original grace and beauty.

I happen to agree about the top cap. Easier to swap it out, a bit harder to find a cheap donor single ring. But if a person was going to to all that, easier to just swap the whole head and braze it on. Which would take away the whole point of "restoring" it. From a collector's point of view it would just be another frankenrazor.
It's still unuseable, imho. The damaged coners of the cap pushed into the base plate, so the cap has a "smile" from corner to corner, and the whole head lost its geometry. Gillette cap and comb doesn't lay flat on top of each other, the cap has a slightly smaller curve.
US 102 caps have no markings, so a swaping it out is "easy", swapping the comb requiers a matching serial, wich is harder to find (and would be a real fake). Brazing isn't required, just have to add a thin tube for support, this can be crimped onto the comb. Almost impossible to tell apart from an original, even disassembled.
 
The cap is pretty thin, so it can be bent back by hand on a hard surface after the corners are flattened. Done a few this way.
 
E
With all due respect, this one didn't get any better. The cap is almost beyond repair so I'd swap it out and bend the baseplate on its own.
The baseplate was bent by itself. I then measured the newly bent base plate to my Bell handle the curvature is virtually identical.

Yes the cap is in rough shape. I used the jig to straighten the length out. I did massage the 4 corners more so when a blade is installed they do not touch the base plate.

I fully agree that I need to make a jig for only the cap if we’re to do more. As this was a one time deal. The single jig served its purpose.

I test shaved with the razor and it shaved like an old type. So I would consider it a success.
 

Esox

I didnt know
Ambassador
I just thought I would share with you all. That I can undestroy also.

A member sent me his Bell handle Aristocrat to see if I could save it.

Behold!!!!

Before View attachment 1142303

Now after making a jig.
View attachment 1142305
You might want to file those cap corners flat. See my Single Ring.

Before. Notice the airspace around the blade.
before (2).jpg

After. No airpsace for the blade to vibrate in.
after (2).JPG

The rolled over edges on the corners of the cap let the blade vibrate as you shave. When I filed mine off, 30 seconds with a steel nail file, it instantly became much smoother.
 
You might want to file those cap corners flat. See my Single Ring.

Before. Notice the airspace around the blade.
View attachment 1142672

After. No airpsace for the blade to vibrate in.
View attachment 1142671

The rolled over edges on the corners of the cap let the blade vibrate as you shave. When I filed mine off, 30 seconds with a steel nail file, it instantly became much smoother.
Thanks. I will pass that on to the owner. I thought about that myself as is is just floating in space when loaded with a blade.
 
Gillette cap and comb doesn't lay flat on top of each other, the cap has a slightly smaller curve.
Having straightened many twisted, bowed, and pinched thin cap Old Types, I fully concur with your statement. The baseplate and cap have different radii of curvature. As designed, once assembled the thin cap Old Type has an "air gap" between the cap and baseplate on the center line.
 
Having straightened many twisted, bowed, and pinched thin cap Old Types, I fully concur with your statement. The baseplate and cap have different radii of curvature. As designed, once assembled the thin cap Old Type has an "air gap" between the cap and baseplate on the center line.
You are correct on different curves. That being said the underside of the base plate has the same curvature as the underside of the cap. So when you put the cap on top of the base plate. There is a .065 inch difference in radius. That obviously is the thickness of the base plate.

Here are a few pictures of the die that I made to reshape the messed up Bell handle. You have to realize that I had to design in a smaller curvature than what I wanted to finish with. As there is always spring back. So I went to my trusty Machinists Handbook and found the formula.

Obviously if I were to try and reshape the cap I would need to make a new top piece of the die to make sure I applied even pressure over the entire cap top and bottom.

Doing what I did to the cap in the die only took some bow out along the length. It did not correct the entire thing. So if I ever happen to be in need of fixing another I will invest a few minutes and make a second top die for the cap.

This is my Bell Handle I got all the measurements from.
20EE38ED-1F85-4413-8FFF-4350F471B1FD.jpeg
79598ACC-6C9A-4581-9C84-7A54DE7189EE.jpeg
CDC56D70-7E36-4422-8E55-1F2CDD988418.jpeg
 
You are correct on different curves. That being said the underside of the base plate has the same curvature as the underside of the cap. So when you put the cap on top of the base plate. There is a .065 inch difference in radius. That obviously is the thickness of the base plate.
My findings are somewhat different, based on the maybe 40 thin cap Old Types I've straightened over the years. The underside of the cap has a different curvature than the underside of the baseplate, so I use two different jigs.

My data is based on a NOS Old Type that was provided to me for analysis.

My jigs are not as high tech as yours - they're just two different thick wall pipe segments with three holes drilled into them.
 
My findings are somewhat different, based on the maybe 40 thin cap Old Types I've straightened over the years. The underside of the cap has a different curvature than the underside of the baseplate, so I have two different jigs.

My data is based on a NOS Old Type that was provided to me for analysis.

My jigs are not as high tech as yours - they're just two different thick wall pipe segments with three holes drilled into them.
I would love to see your data on those. I could really use that. I then would not have to rely on my VERY LIMITED experience at fixing old types. 1 to date.

With your data if you would let me use it. I could do overlays off all your data compared to my single source. With that we could hopefully come up with what exactly Gillette did back then.

Here is how I came about my only data point.

I am only basing my jig and findings off of hard measurements with gage pins, Joe blocks and dial test indicators I used to measure my razor base plate and cap. Then put all of the measurements in my CAD program and got hard numbers from my measurements. I then used the formula to figure out how much spring back I was to expect from Brass. Mind you as I do not know the exact brass used. I had to do a best guess on type of brass to get modulus strength and yields to get my numbers. Once I got that I went back and modified the curvature to reflect spring back. I then made the die accordingly.
 
So, can a guy get a PhD in machinistology? Or would that just be an insult to a good machinist? Let's just say I'm impressed by the detailed knowledge and research required to wantonly straighten out a wonky OT thin cap.
 
Top Bottom