But i think those productio problems were fixed in mid April when Joyce added that extra 8,500 dollars to improve the machines. Nickerson did have problems but they were handled in time for mass production.
Gillette Company History Geek Out
- Thread starter MacDaddy
- Start date
Thanks for the Drop box link to the book.....
By the end of 1903 the company had sold a miniscule 51 razors, so it seems possible since it is the end of 1903 and not 1904.
How can that be, Pelham knew what it cost to make. He even gave the exact amount to the House of Representatives Sub Committee when they questioned him about it. Pelham said that $5 dollars was enough for a profit and return for the inventor/ Gillette and associate/Nickerson.
House Sub rep/Lenroot asked him how much of the $5 dollars goes into manufacturing? Pelham answers-$3.10.
Lenroot asks-and the rest of the $5.00 dollars? Pelham answers- a certain percent between the Jobbers and Retailers.
Lenroot- how much does it cost to make a razor? Pelham answers- with selling expense and overhead charges it cost $2.25 to make a razor.
As you can see Pelham knew exactly how much it was to make.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #66
Alex, you're talking about two wildly different things there. Nickerson was saying that at the time the price was set, in April of 1903, they still didn't know clearly what their costs would be to manufacture and market the razor. That piece of Pelham's testimony before the House subcommittee was regarding what their cost and profit-sharing breakdown was at that time, in 1912.
Here are some questions for you guys.
1. Do we know the oldest inspection ticket found? curious to see the case and razor espicially in a non serial numbered kit.
2. Were the inspection tickets for blades and razor or the set itself, I wonder if blades sold alone had insepction tickets? I have a 1906 paper box that extra blades were sold in but empty.
3. Where are the facts on serial numbers. When they started etc? just Krumholtz?. Traceing non serial numbered sets could be useful
1. Do we know the oldest inspection ticket found? curious to see the case and razor espicially in a non serial numbered kit.
2. Were the inspection tickets for blades and razor or the set itself, I wonder if blades sold alone had insepction tickets? I have a 1906 paper box that extra blades were sold in but empty.
3. Where are the facts on serial numbers. When they started etc? just Krumholtz?. Traceing non serial numbered sets could be useful
Oh i see, those statements were made many years later. I think that Nickerson may have had a better idea on the manufacture costs since he did all the building of the razors and blades. Good thing that he was on the price setting committee....oh wait, i think Joyce may have already settled on the price all by himself anyway.
Some of these questions may be hard to answer, n0t many people are that interested on those questions [ besides us at B&B], i am sure that if enough interest is shown somebody may come up with some tickets, but we have to keep digging. Tracing down non serial sets is another issue.
Waits Compendium has a section on it, i referenced on many occasions and Porter encountered many errors that i was not aware of. Now i use it with a grain of salt/
Well I just got off my butt and read an inspection ticket from a set - it is for the blades not the razor.
So your still searching for a razor ticket............
I stumbled across these two things that I thought might be of some interest in this thread:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/colloquium/law_economics/documents/PickerRazors090210.pdf
http://theshaveden.com/forums/threads/how-to-identify-gillette-3-piece-razors.18665/
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/colloquium/law_economics/documents/PickerRazors090210.pdf
http://theshaveden.com/forums/threads/how-to-identify-gillette-3-piece-razors.18665/
Thanks Dirt Diver
Hmmmm In the northwestern piece he pointed out the October 1903 systems ad had 20 blades and the November ad had 12 blades. 51 sets sold in 1903. So they decided to reduce to 12 blades in just the one month if I read that correctly? I wonder if after the tins if they put 12 blades in the sharp box, 0 in the dull or 6 and 6? All my complete double and single ring sets with original blades have some in both boxes but of course none sealed in a shipper.
I held a complete litho tin set and it had 20 blades so this ad would confirm 1903 pre Novmeber sale. It is highly possible only 51 or so tin sets went out 1903. People kept tins around for holding stuff back then and more of them should be around. Even Gillette factory workers had 25 of them for screws and parts in the factory for years until a collector pulled them out. Many of the 25 had holes in them being nailed up and I also heard some had blue paint on one side. If Gillette went from 20 to 12 blades in in one month in 1903 that means they were struggling with costs. The litho tin and the two litho blade holders had to be expensive so they dropped them. Nickerson said the first "commercial shipment" he had any records of was Jan 1904. Why would he say "commercial" why not just "the first shipment". I think they had to sell some mail order and possible pre-orders in 1903 and would agree those sales may not have shipped until January 1904 but the revenue was 1903. Back then people waited on everything. However figuring out 1903 pre orders of who gets 20 blades and who gets 12 blades makes me lean toward 1903 shipped tin sets and the trial sets in the white pasteboard boxes.
So They scrapped the tins starting fresh in January dumped the old packaging as they had sales really picking up, not to mention we still have the whole patent issue that stamped on the tins and blade wrappers that could have been another can of worms for them. They go to the leather boxes and workers used the left over tins. In the hunt for my tin I talked with two collectors one told me the story of the 25 pulled out of the factory. 2 months later I asked a very well known collector where he got his tin and he said "I got one of the 25 pulled out of the factory years ago." two verbal sources. If 25 were left in the shop from 1903 there were probably a handful more workers may have taken. I say they pulled the remaining tins and went to the new packaging as they saw orders coming in heavy in late 1903.
Hmmmm In the northwestern piece he pointed out the October 1903 systems ad had 20 blades and the November ad had 12 blades. 51 sets sold in 1903. So they decided to reduce to 12 blades in just the one month if I read that correctly? I wonder if after the tins if they put 12 blades in the sharp box, 0 in the dull or 6 and 6? All my complete double and single ring sets with original blades have some in both boxes but of course none sealed in a shipper.
I held a complete litho tin set and it had 20 blades so this ad would confirm 1903 pre Novmeber sale. It is highly possible only 51 or so tin sets went out 1903. People kept tins around for holding stuff back then and more of them should be around. Even Gillette factory workers had 25 of them for screws and parts in the factory for years until a collector pulled them out. Many of the 25 had holes in them being nailed up and I also heard some had blue paint on one side. If Gillette went from 20 to 12 blades in in one month in 1903 that means they were struggling with costs. The litho tin and the two litho blade holders had to be expensive so they dropped them. Nickerson said the first "commercial shipment" he had any records of was Jan 1904. Why would he say "commercial" why not just "the first shipment". I think they had to sell some mail order and possible pre-orders in 1903 and would agree those sales may not have shipped until January 1904 but the revenue was 1903. Back then people waited on everything. However figuring out 1903 pre orders of who gets 20 blades and who gets 12 blades makes me lean toward 1903 shipped tin sets and the trial sets in the white pasteboard boxes.
So They scrapped the tins starting fresh in January dumped the old packaging as they had sales really picking up, not to mention we still have the whole patent issue that stamped on the tins and blade wrappers that could have been another can of worms for them. They go to the leather boxes and workers used the left over tins. In the hunt for my tin I talked with two collectors one told me the story of the 25 pulled out of the factory. 2 months later I asked a very well known collector where he got his tin and he said "I got one of the 25 pulled out of the factory years ago." two verbal sources. If 25 were left in the shop from 1903 there were probably a handful more workers may have taken. I say they pulled the remaining tins and went to the new packaging as they saw orders coming in heavy in late 1903.
I stumbled across these two things that I thought might be of some interest in this thread:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/colloquium/law_economics/documents/PickerRazors090210.pdf
http://theshaveden.com/forums/threads/how-to-identify-gillette-3-piece-razors.18665/
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #75
This Picker paper has come up before and I have other issues with some of his facts and more with his analyses, but I'd missed this particular nugget before. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that that particular issue of System has been digitized by any source I can turn up, so it'll probably have to wait until I can find a physical source to verify, but I think it's much more likely that Picker's just wrong about that date. As I mentioned above, all the Gillette ads placed in the System in 1904 up until the June issue still quote the sets as coming with 20 blades.
Here's the one from the May 1904 issue, the last one before the June one I already clipped above:
- Thread starter
- #77
You know what? Looking closer at the ad clipping that Picker included in his paper, I might be wrong. They just might have been fiddling with the blade counts here... The address given for the Gillette Sales Company appears to have changed between January and March of 1904 (from "1605-6" to "1208" in the Manhattan Building), and it looks like Picker's clipping might have the older address. Of course, in other ads later in 1904 I can see a handful of other different addresses all in the Manhattan Building (including 1601, 1627, and 1644), so I'm not entirely sure what to make of that...
This is me just talking out loud here, but it's possible that all that was needed for delivery was "Gillette Sales Company, Manhattan Building, Chicago, Ill." and they were using the number to track the source of the referral. I've actually read some account somewhere that talked about them tracking response and I remember wondering at the time how exactly they did it.
- Thread starter
- #78
Yes, I know that, but because it's a static paper and I can't find that particular source online, I don't have any way right now, aside from taking his word for it, to verify that he didn't make a mistake there in dating that ad. Unlike when I clip a reference here and I'm able to link it back to the source where I pulled it.
In any case, see my reply to myself that I added just before this.
I feel that this is relevant to this thread, so I am posting it. If you disagree, then just tell me to go crawl back into the hole I dragged myself out of:
I had my first shave with this particular razor that I found on Etsy. View attachment 332095View attachment 332096View attachment 332097
Gillette Tech 1964 (I used a personna red Israeli instead of the Gillette thin, as bad as I wanted to I didnt want to open it) and what a great f*&^ing shave! They dont make 'em like they used to holds true on this little baby! good weight, smooth glide, ergonomic blade angle... and I'm still a noob! I like also that it is the shortest handle I have. I got a long handle (Parker 90) to start with because I was so used to the mach 3 that i figured it would be a good transition. I have since gotten a Muhle R89 (which I love) and its a little bit shorter, but this one is awesome. Oldie but a goodie. I am going to have a hard time trying to figure out which one I want to use as a regular...
I guess I could just keep alternating
I had my first shave with this particular razor that I found on Etsy. View attachment 332095View attachment 332096View attachment 332097
Gillette Tech 1964 (I used a personna red Israeli instead of the Gillette thin, as bad as I wanted to I didnt want to open it) and what a great f*&^ing shave! They dont make 'em like they used to holds true on this little baby! good weight, smooth glide, ergonomic blade angle... and I'm still a noob! I like also that it is the shortest handle I have. I got a long handle (Parker 90) to start with because I was so used to the mach 3 that i figured it would be a good transition. I have since gotten a Muhle R89 (which I love) and its a little bit shorter, but this one is awesome. Oldie but a goodie. I am going to have a hard time trying to figure out which one I want to use as a regular...
I guess I could just keep alternating
You posted that ad the one I put in from Picker in some past posts, nothing we have not seen but I thought is was October 1903? I saved it and looked expecting it to say 20 blades and the one above being 12 but they are the same. The one he put as November was the one I thought was October.
Last edited:
Similar threads
