Bring on the Rockettes!!!!!
Bring on the Rockettes!!!!!
Nice PIF. I'm in.The Gillette Razor, 1903, PAT. AP. FOR. My submission to the Double Ring Parade, @imatabor. I finally did it, Johnny!
View attachment 1056367View attachment 1056368
That they are! I still am unsure which came first, the AP or the APLD.You can shave with them too . 1904 PAF.
Sent from my LG-US998 using Tapatalk
How many do you own? If you don't mind my asking.One of mine is stamped upside down. They didn't have it all together just yet.
I've been researching trying to figure out exactly when my PAT. AP. FOR was made. I know 1903 is the correct year. I guess where it gets murky is I've read conflicting things. One person says the first 53 sets were stamped this way but they produced 494 sets.
From the Gillette blade, Knickerson recalls them sending many free razors out to get the word out before sales even started.
Is it possible my razor could be from the free batch or from the first sales batch?
Were the 53 the end of the year sales or the 494. I dont know which came first. Also, am I correct in saying the "APL'D" came after the "AP" in the production run or were they running at the same time?
Adam, Thank you. It makes a lot of sense.Hello! Take a look at page 9-11 of the Gillette blade January 1919. The contract with Townsend&Hunt called for a delivery limit of 2k razors in 1903.
The 50 sent out on the 1st of January 1904 was the first commercial shipment Knickerson has a record of, so there could have been more.
And if they shipped on the 1st, the sale had to be done in 1903.
Further, during January 1904 they shipped approx. 1.2k sets, so I’ll guess they could also make a similar quantity a month earlier.
All I want to say is that the numbers seems to be really off.
Found an earlier post of mine. Forgot that Townsend was active from at least October, so I suspect they also sold some razors.
Need help identifying which blades go with this 1903 Double Ring set. Thanks!
So much to learn, so much still a mystery. Here is the full booklet. Thanks for sharing that! That was some really good advice in there. I love the wording too!www.badgerandblade.com
Adam
Adam, Thank you. It makes a lot of sense.
Not sure about that. I think a dozen or so sets but a few are missing the blade boxes.How many do you own? If you don't mind my asking.
Personally, I would love to see a group pic.Not sure about that. I think a dozen or so sets but a few are missing the blade boxes.
I may pull them out and line them up for a group pic.
Hello, found from where the 51 sets and 14 dozen (168 blades) sold in 1903 "myth" comes from, a Gillette chart made around 1925-26.
I see some problems with these numbers:
Nickersons first recorded delivery was in January 1904., 50 sets.
In an interview from 1916, Pelham (Townsend & Hunt) talks about receiving 185 5 dollar bills in 1903 (one set was 5 USD, so 185 sets were ordered).
In 1903 blades were not sold by the dozen, this came in 1904.
The other weird thing is the serial numbering from 1904. According to Krumholz, the serial numbers were reverse engineered for 1903-1908 from Gillette sales reports, so there could be a small or large amount of error.
In theory 55000 sets were produced without a serial number, 45424 were serial numbered. From the 45424 roughly 25000 were stamped patent pending, 20000 were stamped Pat.Nov.15.04.
The patent stamp shouldn't be earlier than 15th November 1904, as who could have known beforehand when exactly the patent will be granted.
For 1904 Nickerson has the following production numbers:
January 1276
February 1255
March 1595
April 2920
May 3300
June 6265
July 6519
August 9661
32791 razors in the first 8 months. 68000 razors missing from the "official" quota.
If 20000 razors got the Pat.Nov. stamp (made between 15th November-31th December 1904) 48000 razors should have been made from September to middle of November.
Adam
I have not confirmed this and don't recall where I got it. Seems legit though.Any ideas about these plain blade banks? Limited to Chicago sets? Year(s)? Mine is PAF 04.
Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
Would narrow it down a bit, thanks.I have not confirmed this and don't recall where I got it. Seems legit though.