A razor marked "DRP No 162438" would make me take notice.
Gillette Single Rings with British Patent Numbers
- Thread starter GBinOZ
- Start date
A razor marked "DRP No 162438" would make me take notice.
- Thread starter
- #202
Well yes. "Made in Germany"... even better.
Great find on the 1920 Gillette v Inland Revenue case.
"...English branch of the Boston company which in 1908, removed from the Minories to 17 Holborn Viaduct. The business was that of manufacturers and vendors of Gillette razors and razor blades. The Boston company had a factory at Leicester at which they manufactured Gillette razors and razor blades.On the 29th Sept. 1908 a company named ...."
The use of the past test (had) and the way the narrative stays in 1908 seems to me to indicate that Leicester was in production prior to the move from Minories. Also, the first paragraph of Page 365 seems to indicate that Leicester was eventually purchased after the 1908 lease.
I looked at the excerpts from the Bulletin of the US Trade-Mark Assoc. Snippets appear to be cropped at the edges as well as being very brief and very frustrating. I did a search on "gillette" and it returned 5 hits but would only show me 3 of them. One mentioned "trade mark law of Austria", another "Gillette Litigation in Germany" and the third was even less informative. But the litigation was in a German court. I don't know how foriegn patents are administered. Does being in a German court mean it was relying on a German patent? Would a German court have had jurisdiction over a foreign patent?
Cheers, George
We have plenty of seemingly contradictory sources that we are left to puzzle out. These contradictions could be down to simple mistakes or misremembrances; in some cases they might come from some amount of stretching the truth or whitewashing of events, or from details being glossed over; and in other cases it may be more that the sources are representing different facets of a larger truth that resolves the contradiction. And frequently it's going to be some combination of all of the above. To try to navigate through all the possibilities we have to stack up the various sources we have and try to judge between them. Some evidence will invariably be discounted to some degree, and if you're going to "despair" when it is, I'd say that's being a little dramatic.
In this particular case, if we're looking specifically at the question of whether the evidence we have suggests that Gillette operated two different Leicester facilities, I don't think there's any way you can safely make that case relying solely on KCG's statement and the Leicester Council's use of "and." In KCG's case, I've read enough of his writing to have a feel for him and he's fundamentally a salesman. His desire to craft a better sounding story is always going to make him a less reliable source on the details of matters than, say, Nickerson who was a very different kind of a cat. I have no problem taking KCG's "Land for this purpose was purchased..." with a rather large grain of salt. And looking at the Leicester Council's piece, I'd be far more concerned with their use of "Nostrop," which was a cable handle that Gillette used, as the name of the company. For all we know someone was looking at something that said "Nostrop, North Evington, St. Saviour's Road East" and reported it the way they did.
I think we've settled that particular question pretty well already, though.
I would also love to see a DRP inscription on a razor, since it seems strange to me to try to make the case that a German operation manufacturing goods in Germany would have marked a British patent number on them. In France I might be somewhat more inclined to let that sort of thing slide given their different patent system, but I'm less inclined in the case of Germany.
However, don't take that to mean that I'm saying that none of the examples we've seen so far were made in Germany. In questions like these the default position isn't "yes" or "no," but rather "I don't know." Saying that something isn't convincing evidence that the answer swing one way isn't the same as saying that it should swing the other way. Right now I'd say I'm leaning more towards the side that the razors we've seen so far were more likely made in Leicester than Germany, but I still wouldn't state that as a definitive fact.
One possible counter-argument is that the German plant was functioning not as a German company, but rather as a branch of the British company, and as such might still have used the British patent as its primary marker. While it's certainly possible that that could be true, it's unfortunate for us here a hundred years later since it wouldn't give us any way of distinguishing between the two.
Not terribly likely. That's why Gillette filed for so many patents in various countries, because they'd need a local basis for such claims. However, if those were trademark claims that would be a different matter from the patents anyway.
I'm not certain that I've got the piece you're talking about here, but if I do it's not restricted to Snippet View for us here in the States. I know Google Books restricts things differently internationally, though. I've pulled down the images for you here. If it was a different article (there are another couple of articles about the trademarks in Germany after WWI, too) let me know and I'll see if I can excerpt that one for you similarly.
- Thread starter
- #204
Hi Porter,
We may have a communication breakdown here. My only despair was at the language manipulation. I’m fine with expressing an opinion that KCG was prone to making unreliable statements. Not so fine with Gillette said ......., but what he may have meant was something else contrary to the established word usage.
I did modify my opinion on the two facilities in an earlier post. The evidence we have is:
KCG stating that "In 1907 it was decided to build a factory in England. Land for this purpose was purchased at Leicester, and the factory was completed and in operation early in the year 1909".
Two news reports from 1908 reporting the lease of the Gordon Boot Works, with at least one of those report adding “with an option to purchase”.
Marshall reports that “Negotiations were entered into for the purchase of the site”.
A debtor’s report indicating that the Gordon Boot Works and the Leicester factory shared the same address.
The 1920 Gillette v Inland Revenue case reporting:
“the Gillette Safety Razor Co. of England, Ld purchased from the Boston company as from June 30, 1908, as a going concern, (1) the goodwill of the business; (2) the leasehold premises at 17, Holborn Viaduct, and Leicester, (3.) all plant, machinery, stock-in-trade, etc., (4.) the benefit of all pending contracts, (5.) all other property except the British Letters Patent of the English branch of the Boston company.”
and
“The appellant company temporarily took over the factory at Leicester for use as a store at a rent after the rate of 400l. per annum, and it also took over the lease of the Holborn Viaduct premises. The appellant company moved out of the Leicester factory in January, 1916, upon which it was disposed of by the USA company.”
My modified theory is that Gillette leased the old Gordon Boot Works with an option to purchase which it subsequntly took up. Production began in the leased premises and a further expansion building was completed in 1909. The Boston to England purchase lists the real estate assets as “the leasehold premises at 17 Holborn Viaduct, and Leicester”. I read this with the comma as a grammatical delimiter between two independent clauses (I just know I’m going to take some flak over this one
). Had Leicester been leased then grammatically it should have said “at Leicester. The next transfer shows a taking over of the lease for the office, but the Leicester factory was not designated as leased and was subsequently “disposed of”. A company cannot dispose of an asset that it doesn’t own. You can’t dispose of a lease, it just expires.
While I was pondering this theory, Mike came up with a similar speculation that almost agreed with mine, except for the last sentence:
"To the extent that Marshall and King Camp are in conflict, one possible answer might be time. Because of the newspaper sources we can be pretty sure that Gillette started out in Leicester by leasing the Gordon works. However as time went on they may have bought land and built buildings. Remember the 1913 article that said the Leicester plant was "nearly as big" as Boston? The Boston plant was not built in a day: it grew over time, adding new buildings. However this is just speculation and rests on a pretty weak foundation. If there had been extensive investment in Leicester I expect Marshall would have mentioned it. It might have also come up in the 1920 Gillette v. IRC case, but as far as I can tell it did not".
Thanks, for the images about the German production. I keep turning this puzzle over in my mind. We now have reports from several sources that there was a short period of production of razors in Germany. Despite the mention of "safety razors and similar goods" in the image you provided, Mike has no opinion on whether they made razor sets, blades, or both. I did find this snippet by searching the same publication, but I don’t think from the same article so I'm not claiming any great relevance.
It specifically differentiates the term “safety razors” from including “blades”.The curious thing I noticed in the image you provided was “the Berlin branch discontinued the manufacturing end of the business, and sent part of its equipment to the London House”. Why only part? If “the manufacturing end” referred only to making blades, why would they send back only part of the equipment when they discontinued making blades. But if they were making safety razors and blades and discontinued the more labour intensive of the two, then sending back the razor making equipment and retaining the blade making equipment would make more sense of that statement.
All of this speculation is all very well, but each trail of clues hits the wall with the question put by Porter and Mike – Why didn’t they put their own patent on the razors? If there was a very short run of razors made in Germany with the DRP patent the odds are that one would have been found by now and the fact that one hasn’t makes it improbable that one ever will be found. So if that hope is relegated to the realm of wishful thinking, we are then left with Porter’s operation as a British company possibility. So would a source stating that the German razors were marked with the British patent constitute “clear evidence”? Even then, unless the prefix was specified we could only speculate which ones were German made.
We may have a communication breakdown here. My only despair was at the language manipulation. I’m fine with expressing an opinion that KCG was prone to making unreliable statements. Not so fine with Gillette said ......., but what he may have meant was something else contrary to the established word usage.
I did modify my opinion on the two facilities in an earlier post. The evidence we have is:
KCG stating that "In 1907 it was decided to build a factory in England. Land for this purpose was purchased at Leicester, and the factory was completed and in operation early in the year 1909".
Two news reports from 1908 reporting the lease of the Gordon Boot Works, with at least one of those report adding “with an option to purchase”.
Marshall reports that “Negotiations were entered into for the purchase of the site”.
A debtor’s report indicating that the Gordon Boot Works and the Leicester factory shared the same address.
The 1920 Gillette v Inland Revenue case reporting:
“the Gillette Safety Razor Co. of England, Ld purchased from the Boston company as from June 30, 1908, as a going concern, (1) the goodwill of the business; (2) the leasehold premises at 17, Holborn Viaduct, and Leicester, (3.) all plant, machinery, stock-in-trade, etc., (4.) the benefit of all pending contracts, (5.) all other property except the British Letters Patent of the English branch of the Boston company.”
and
“The appellant company temporarily took over the factory at Leicester for use as a store at a rent after the rate of 400l. per annum, and it also took over the lease of the Holborn Viaduct premises. The appellant company moved out of the Leicester factory in January, 1916, upon which it was disposed of by the USA company.”
My modified theory is that Gillette leased the old Gordon Boot Works with an option to purchase which it subsequntly took up. Production began in the leased premises and a further expansion building was completed in 1909. The Boston to England purchase lists the real estate assets as “the leasehold premises at 17 Holborn Viaduct, and Leicester”. I read this with the comma as a grammatical delimiter between two independent clauses (I just know I’m going to take some flak over this one
). Had Leicester been leased then grammatically it should have said “at Leicester. The next transfer shows a taking over of the lease for the office, but the Leicester factory was not designated as leased and was subsequently “disposed of”. A company cannot dispose of an asset that it doesn’t own. You can’t dispose of a lease, it just expires.While I was pondering this theory, Mike came up with a similar speculation that almost agreed with mine, except for the last sentence:
"To the extent that Marshall and King Camp are in conflict, one possible answer might be time. Because of the newspaper sources we can be pretty sure that Gillette started out in Leicester by leasing the Gordon works. However as time went on they may have bought land and built buildings. Remember the 1913 article that said the Leicester plant was "nearly as big" as Boston? The Boston plant was not built in a day: it grew over time, adding new buildings. However this is just speculation and rests on a pretty weak foundation. If there had been extensive investment in Leicester I expect Marshall would have mentioned it. It might have also come up in the 1920 Gillette v. IRC case, but as far as I can tell it did not".
Thanks, for the images about the German production. I keep turning this puzzle over in my mind. We now have reports from several sources that there was a short period of production of razors in Germany. Despite the mention of "safety razors and similar goods" in the image you provided, Mike has no opinion on whether they made razor sets, blades, or both. I did find this snippet by searching the same publication, but I don’t think from the same article so I'm not claiming any great relevance.
It specifically differentiates the term “safety razors” from including “blades”.The curious thing I noticed in the image you provided was “the Berlin branch discontinued the manufacturing end of the business, and sent part of its equipment to the London House”. Why only part? If “the manufacturing end” referred only to making blades, why would they send back only part of the equipment when they discontinued making blades. But if they were making safety razors and blades and discontinued the more labour intensive of the two, then sending back the razor making equipment and retaining the blade making equipment would make more sense of that statement.
All of this speculation is all very well, but each trail of clues hits the wall with the question put by Porter and Mike – Why didn’t they put their own patent on the razors? If there was a very short run of razors made in Germany with the DRP patent the odds are that one would have been found by now and the fact that one hasn’t makes it improbable that one ever will be found. So if that hope is relegated to the realm of wishful thinking, we are then left with Porter’s operation as a British company possibility. So would a source stating that the German razors were marked with the British patent constitute “clear evidence”? Even then, unless the prefix was specified we could only speculate which ones were German made.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #205
I have just read this article and found this:
"The factory in England has been enlarged from time to time until it is nearly as big as the Boston plant".
This adds further evidence to the theory that the site with factory was originally leased with an option to purchase, that option was taken up and further building(s) added.
No worries guys, I'll go there and ask 'em directly what they're up to ...
- Thread starter
- #207
Thanks Edgar. When you decide to return can you set the date to before this post so we won't need this investigation?
Thanks Edgar. When you decide to return can you set the date to before this post so we won't need this investigation?
Of course, George! And I promise I'll bring you a nice NOS Double Ring, along with a couple NOS English Single Rings!
- Thread starter
- #209
This is an interesting possible alternative.
Extract from the 1920 Gillette v Inland Revenue case:
"On the 29th Sept. 1908 a company named the Gillette Safety Razor Co. of England, Ld. (hereinafter called the English company), of 17, Holborn Viaduct, was registered in London under the Companies Acts, and by an agreement dated September 30, 1908, it purchased from the Boston company as from June 30, 1908, as a going concern, (1) the goodwill of the business; (2) the leasehold premises at 17, Holborn Viaduct, and Leicester, (3.) all plant, machinery, stock-in-trade, etc., (4.) the benefit of all pending contracts, (5.) all other property except the British Letters Patent of the English branch of the Boston company.
It was also provided by the agreement that the Boston company should grant to the English company the sole and exclusive licence to manufacture and sell in the United Kingdom safety and other razors manufactured under such letters patent, for the residue of the term granted by such letters patent or any extension thereof, such licence to be subject to a reservation to the Boston company of the right to regulate from time to time the prices at which articles manufactured under the licence could be sold to and by factors, wholesalers, and dealers, and to and by retailers, and to require every such article to bear a label containing the conditions as to prices from time to time imposed, and to such other reservations and upon and subject to such royalties, terms and conditions as might be reasonably imposed by the Boston company".
Extract from Blade article by KCG:
Extract From Blade by Marshall:
The IRC and KCG both report the establishment of a subordinate company referred to as the English Company. Both reports are in agreement with their dates. If we then look at Marshall's report we see him say that manufacturing permissions were given (to the English Company) by the parent company and then goes on to say "Another subordinate company" was formed in Germany with the same arrangement for the supply of equipment. But it is hard to tell whether this indicates that Germany was a subordinate company to Boston or to the English Company and we don't know what conditions may have been included regarding the use of patents. What effect, if any, would this have had on the selection of which patents to put on a razor?
Another interesting aspects are:
the "agreement dated September 30, 1908, it purchased from the Boston company as from June 30, 1908, as a going concern". In a legal contract to be a going concern the factory would have needed to be in operation, not idle.
KCG also states "a factory was established in France to supply the demand there for the Gillette Safety Razor and Blades".
In Marshalls' article he says that all machinery was returned from Germany which conflicts with the report in the image that you provided which said that only part of the was returned.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #210
While I was searching for information on the suffixed US patent Pat.Nov.15.04.N, I came across what appeares to be a predecessor to the TTO.
"The main inconvenience of safety razors of what may be termed the Gillette type where the blade is clamped between a back piece and a guard or clamp, lies in the fact and that in the only practical form of this razor which has appeared on the market the holder has to be taken entirely apart to insort and adjust or remove the blade.
; My invention pertains ;to an improved form of holder wherein the various parts are so connected together that they never are detached one-from the other in the ordinary 20" use of the razor. A This is due primarily to the fact that what may be termed the handle and the back piec'e are made in one piece, the clamp mechanism being attached thereto in such a way that the clamping operation may take place by the manipulation of the parts without their separation. In the ordinary form of Gillette razor the back piece is separate -from the handle which carries the clamp"
The patent date is 1909. Links are:
https://www.google.com/patents/US94...a=X&ei=pG-KU6bQFdLsoAT1joLQBw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg
http://books.google.com/books?id=IR...#v=onepage&q=Safety-razor US 944989 A&f=false
"The main inconvenience of safety razors of what may be termed the Gillette type where the blade is clamped between a back piece and a guard or clamp, lies in the fact and that in the only practical form of this razor which has appeared on the market the holder has to be taken entirely apart to insort and adjust or remove the blade.
; My invention pertains ;to an improved form of holder wherein the various parts are so connected together that they never are detached one-from the other in the ordinary 20" use of the razor. A This is due primarily to the fact that what may be termed the handle and the back piec'e are made in one piece, the clamp mechanism being attached thereto in such a way that the clamping operation may take place by the manipulation of the parts without their separation. In the ordinary form of Gillette razor the back piece is separate -from the handle which carries the clamp"
The patent date is 1909. Links are:
https://www.google.com/patents/US94...a=X&ei=pG-KU6bQFdLsoAT1joLQBw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg
http://books.google.com/books?id=IR...#v=onepage&q=Safety-razor US 944989 A&f=false
So, I was thinking about the Leicester plant and the couple of conflicting sources we have that talk about a 1912 plant closure, and it occurred to me: I wonder if they were reading the record of the dissolution of the British company, initially "Gillette Safety Razor Company of England, Ltd." then "Gillette Safety Razor, Ltd.," and overlooking the fact that Gillette formed a new subsidiary American company, "Gillette Safety Razor of U.S.A., Ltd.," to acquire and operate the plant from that point on.
It seems to me like that would cleanly explain why that 1912 date might pop up and be misunderstood to be a closure date, and still fit in with Marshall's account of events, which I'm much more inclined to take as authoritative.
It seems to me like that would cleanly explain why that 1912 date might pop up and be misunderstood to be a closure date, and still fit in with Marshall's account of events, which I'm much more inclined to take as authoritative.
- Thread starter
- #212
I noticed that the book "Gillette's New Palace of Industry" also nominates the closure of Leicester as about 1912.
I'm not sure that the change of company ownership would have been of as much signicance as the fact that the business and assets acquired by the English Company as a going concern in 1908 were disposed of in a state of "voluntary liquidation".
I'm not sure that the change of company ownership would have been of as much signicance as the fact that the business and assets acquired by the English Company as a going concern in 1908 were disposed of in a state of "voluntary liquidation".
That's only because you're looking at it now as a continuous thread with the benefit of our ability to pull a wide variety of sources together with relatively little effort. Back when these other sources would have been written they likely would have just had a record in a volume like this one. I can certainly see someone looking at something that said that Gillette Safety Razor, Ltd. operated from 1908-1912 and not think to look for a foreign company that effectively just took its place.
Yes, and I made that same mistake when I first read about the 1912 reorganization. But pulling the the Marshall and IRC accounts together, it seems much more likely that the factory kept on turning out Gillette products until the war made it difficult to find materials and labor. Even in early 1914 we have a contemporary source talking about expansion as a recent thing: http://books.google.com/books?id=NQtXAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA78&lpg=RA5-PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false "The factory in England has been enlarged from time to time until it is nearly as big as the Boston plant." That statement might be exaggerated, but would it have been made at all if the factory had been shuttered in 1912?
In 1912 it seems there was every reason to keep the Leicester factory humming. By 1915 there was every reason to shut it down.
- Thread starter
- #215
That is assuming that it was "humming". According to the IRC report "the English company went into voluntary liquidation on August 3, 1912, and was finally wound up on October 6, 1913". It goes on to say "One of the objects of the USA company was to acquire all assets and rights of the English company then in liquidation, an object which was attained, being sanctioned by an order of the High Court of Justice dated July 1, 1913".
- Thread starter
- #216
I am of the opinion that the above statement was referring to the building extensions to the original Gordon Boot Factory which were completed in 1909 according to the 1909 catalogue which pictures a substantial building.
These are the exact same sort of corporate acrobatics that we see Gillette go through in their earliest years with the separate formation of the Gillette Sales Company prior to its being "acquired" and folded back into the main company. Their standard operating procedure seems to have been to insulate the parent company from risk by starting up new expansions through separately capitalized shell companies that could be cut loose if things failed or consumed if they succeeded.
- Thread starter
- #218
Hi Porter,
I am pleased that you have re-activated this thread. It is obvious that Mike and yourself have major differences with most of my viewpoints. I hope that we can accept and work through those differences. If not, we may have to agree to disagree and just present opposing viewpoints.
I have to say that I do not share your confidence in Marshall as an authoritative resource over that of KCG. I see Marshall as vague in the period after 1905 up to 1912. He doesnt quote dates where as KCG quotes dates and information which are in agreement with the IRC report. But while I see differences in emphasis, I dont see any areas of disagreement between the 2 mens recollections.
Marshall was involved in the British operation. KCG had control of the bigger picture. The English company was in liquidation for over a year and subject to an order from the High court. This does not present to me the picture of a successful company humming along. If Marshall was involved in a failed venture he may well have presented an account where he offered excuses by citing problems with German production and claims that the war took them by surprise. As has been said before, businessmen do not relish their failures and a company in liquidation is not usually considered a success.
If the war took Marshall by surprise he must have been very insular indeed. Tensions had been building since the end of the Boer War with the rise of nationalism and militarism in Europe prompting alliances and ententes. The conflicts in the Balkans created a tension between Austria Hungary and Russia and Kaiser Wilhelm had already formulated the Schlieffen Plan to knockout France before their ally, Russia, could mobilise. All that was needed to spark the conflict desired by these nationalistic leaders was a trigger, which was achieved at Sarajevo, to start the domino alliances falling. War in Europe had been expected for years prior to 1914 but was expected by most to be of short duration. Kitchener was one of the few that forecast that it would last for more than three years.
Marshalls comments were post victory and it would have been convenient for him to point to incompetence in a defeated enemy. Why did he not mention the failure of the Paris factory? In post victory celebrations it would not have been considered proper to mention the failure of an ally.
If Marshall retired in 1930 (mid 60s??) then when he joined the company he would have been around 40 (??). He may have been part of a management team that brought the English company to liquidation. When reminiscing for The Blade he may well have apportioned blame for the company failure and exaggerated achievements in production in the years to follow. Is there corroborative documentation to support Marshalls claims?
Cheers, George
I am pleased that you have re-activated this thread. It is obvious that Mike and yourself have major differences with most of my viewpoints. I hope that we can accept and work through those differences. If not, we may have to agree to disagree and just present opposing viewpoints.
I have to say that I do not share your confidence in Marshall as an authoritative resource over that of KCG. I see Marshall as vague in the period after 1905 up to 1912. He doesnt quote dates where as KCG quotes dates and information which are in agreement with the IRC report. But while I see differences in emphasis, I dont see any areas of disagreement between the 2 mens recollections.
Marshall was involved in the British operation. KCG had control of the bigger picture. The English company was in liquidation for over a year and subject to an order from the High court. This does not present to me the picture of a successful company humming along. If Marshall was involved in a failed venture he may well have presented an account where he offered excuses by citing problems with German production and claims that the war took them by surprise. As has been said before, businessmen do not relish their failures and a company in liquidation is not usually considered a success.
If the war took Marshall by surprise he must have been very insular indeed. Tensions had been building since the end of the Boer War with the rise of nationalism and militarism in Europe prompting alliances and ententes. The conflicts in the Balkans created a tension between Austria Hungary and Russia and Kaiser Wilhelm had already formulated the Schlieffen Plan to knockout France before their ally, Russia, could mobilise. All that was needed to spark the conflict desired by these nationalistic leaders was a trigger, which was achieved at Sarajevo, to start the domino alliances falling. War in Europe had been expected for years prior to 1914 but was expected by most to be of short duration. Kitchener was one of the few that forecast that it would last for more than three years.
Marshalls comments were post victory and it would have been convenient for him to point to incompetence in a defeated enemy. Why did he not mention the failure of the Paris factory? In post victory celebrations it would not have been considered proper to mention the failure of an ally.
If Marshall retired in 1930 (mid 60s??) then when he joined the company he would have been around 40 (??). He may have been part of a management team that brought the English company to liquidation. When reminiscing for The Blade he may well have apportioned blame for the company failure and exaggerated achievements in production in the years to follow. Is there corroborative documentation to support Marshalls claims?
Cheers, George
I don't know... I think I can still convince you.
I would say that it's Marshall who gives a significant amount more detail of the actual lifecycle of Gillette's British concerns in these years, but as you say he and KCG aren't really in very much conflict at all. The only point of disagreement as I can see it is KCG's statement that the company purchased a piece of land and constructed a factory from whole cloth. I see nothing that would support that claim, when all the other sources suggest that Gillette leased and even subsequently purchased the property that the Gordon factory was already on, and there's plenty to suggest that they improved and expanded that factory. I just take KCG as wanting to paint a grander picture there than, "... so we bought an old boot factory there and fixed it up."
What I was talking about when I said I considered Marshall's account to be more authoritative was his description of the company's operation beyond 1912, which had been described (incorrectly, I believe) as a plant closure date. Here's Marshall's account of the years following the corporate restructuring:
It seems to me that your perspective on this issue is entirely colored by the idea that the company being in liquidation was an indication of failure, when it's really just a business process for dissolving an incorporated entity to ensure that all the corporation's shareholders and creditors are satisfied. The mention of the High Court in the liquidation, as far as I can tell was just that its approval was required in order for the newly formed American-based company to acquire the liquidated assets of the British-based company. In the context of your quote above, the High Court's "sanctioning" was not an action against the British company, but rather its official approval for the acquisition.
Also, by 1912 KCG was really more of a figurehead for the company than anything else. Joyce had bought him out in 1910, and he'd moved his primary residence to Santa Monica, California. It seems he was more of a "retired general" at this point who wouldn't have been entirely out of the loop, but also definitely wasn't in control anymore. However, to extend that analogy Marshall was much more of an officer at the front, and as such would have been more in touch with the actual details of events.
I'm not sure I follow where you're going here. I don't read any sense of surprise at the outbreak of war in Marshall's account. It's more a simple statement that the war finally made further manufacturing at Leicester untenable, and that they finally ceased operations there in August of 1915. Yes, his comments about Germany and really all of continental Europe are suspect, but I'd said that from the start and I'm perfectly happy to throw out what he says there for the reasoning behind closing the German plant and still believe the basic fact that it did happen. That basic fact doesn't seem to be in conflict with anything else in any of our other sources, anyway.
He was also pretty clearly bitter (or telegraphing others' bitterness) about Gillette's decision after the restructuring to base the entire operation out of the relative backwater that was Leicester rather than London. In this case, his tone on the matter actually helps strengthen the case the they continued operations there past 1912, otherwise, what would he (or others) have had to be bitter about?
- Thread starter
- #220
I don't know... I think I can still convince you.
Hi Porter,
I have..... almost the same thought.
KCG said In 1907 it was decided to build a factory in England. Land for this purpose was purchased at Leicester, and the factory was completed and in operation early in the year 1909. Had he said In 1907 it was decided to build a factory in England. Land for this purpose, with an existing factory on it, was purchased at Leicester, and new buildings were added to the existing factory and they were completed and in operation early in the year 1909 then we might be in agreement. But KCG was involved in broad brushing and such details were of no concern to him. However, the initial lease and subsequent purchase of land with an existing building allowed manufacture to begin before June 30, 1908 which is when the business was sold as a going concern, not in liquidation. Marshall was on the front line, a freckled corporal if you will, and was more concerned with relating details to a smaller British audience. But at the end, both mens statements arrive at the same conclusion, and perhaps so should we. When I referred to KCG as being concerned with the big picture I was referring to the period of the establishment of Leicester rather the period of its demise.
I do look on the fact that the company was in liquidation as an indicator of failure. Here is an extract from this site: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/voluntary-winding-up.html
UK term for liquidation procedure initiated by the management of a firm following a special or extraordinary resolution to the effect. Two basic types of voluntary winding up procedures are: (1) Members voluntary winding up: under which the directors make a statutory declaration of the firm's solvency within the five weeks preceding the adoption of resolution. This declaration must state that, upon an inquiry into the firm's financial affairs, directors are of the opinion that the firm can pay off its debts in full within a specified period not exceeding 12 months after commencement of winding up. A statement of the firm's assets and liabilities (as on the latest practicable date) must also accompany the declaration and, thereafter, the shareholders (members) of the firm must appoint one or more liquidators in a general meeting. (2) Creditor's voluntary winding up: under which no declaration of the firm's solvency is made but the firm must hold a meeting of creditors and submit to them the statement of its assets and liabilities as on the latest practicable date. The right to appoint liquidator(s) accrues to the creditors. In both types, the powers of directors cease upon the appointment of the liquidator(s). Also called voluntary liquidation.
A company in liquidation for over 12 months had financial problems and unpaid creditors. Action by the High court of Britain is by no means a routine or trivial matter. The High court addresses only the most extreme cases, the costs involved are very high, and recourse to that court is a last resort.
My assessment is that the American company acquired an existing factory in Leicester, supplied it with machinery, and then established an English company to run manufacture in England and to oversee manufacture in Paris and Berlin. The English company was funded to construct additional factory facilities which were completed in early 1909. The American company expected a return on their investment in the form of royalties. I think Paris was manufacturing razors in early 1908 and Berlin late 1908. I think that the senior management in the English company would have been recruited from the British upper class (as they were in the military) and proved inept for the task of managing 3 factories. The manufacture of razors would have been short lived in Paris and Berlin and I think that by 1912 the American company had become dis-satisfied with the performance of the English management and decided to take the company back under their control when it fell into financial difficulty 1912. Marshalls account, directed to a British audience, would have glossed over the reasons for the return of control to American management.
I see support for this argument in the fact that, at this point in time, we have only about 600,000 razors that we might attribute to Leicester. If that facility operated for 4 years (1909-1912 inclusive), then production would not have exactly been humming along. If we consider the possibility that the Paris and Berlin production was included in these figures, or that manufacture continued for another two and a half years then the yearly production figures are even more abysmal. There is also the possibility that when the English company was wound up the American company went back to using the Boston protocol, patent and numbering to mark the razors, in which case they would fall outside the parameters of this exercise.
Cheers, George
Similar threads
