Q. About the History of Stabilizers

[cotedupy]

Here are two razors, both alike in dignity (geddit?!)...

The first is one of the first razors I managed to restore and hone from properly beaten up and rusted, and it's still right up there with my best shavers. So I picked up the second off ebay cos I've got some spare ivory scales and I'm going to make a matching pair.

Except I notice now that they're not quite going to be matching are they, so I was wondering: Was a there a point when stabilizers were invented, or became fashionable? Any particular time period associated with their use? I'm assuming the first one is older, though I may be wrong...

 

[Frank Shaves]

I have wondered the same thing and will be interested to hear from others. From what I have seen, the grind of the second razor came after the grind of the first razor, which does not mean the first razor is older.

I suspect that as the makers developed the ability to grind razors thinner, they added a stabilizer in the second razor to add stability. Not sure if the second razor has one or two stabilizers. But then as grinding developed, makers discovered other ways to add stability like the use of bellies.

I, personally, am not a fan of the design of the second razor and consider the additional stabilizer to be a pesky nuisance when honing. I prefer the blade designs of the 19th century pre-McKinley Sheffield near wedges, and Filarmonica razors which you see in the western-style Japanese razors. But that's me.

I also see that both razors are post-McKinley - they say "SHEFFIELD ENGLAND" not just "SHEFFIELD" - and I would guess that the first razor is near wedge/quarter hollow, and the second half hollow.

 

[cotedupy]

I have wondered the same thing and will be interested to hear from others. From what I have seen, the grind of the second razor came after the grind of the first razor, which does not mean the first razor is older.

I suspect that as the makers developed the ability to grind razors thinner, they added a stabilizer in the second razor to add stability. Not sure if the second razor has one or two stabilizers. But then as grinding developed, makers discovered other ways to add stability like the use of bellies.

I, personally, am not a fan of the design of the second razor and consider the additional stabilizer to be a pesky nuisance when honing. I prefer the blade designs of the 19th century pre-McKinley Sheffield near wedges, and Filarmonica razors which you see in the western-style Japanese razors. But that's me.

I also see that both razors are post-McKinley - they say "SHEFFIELD ENGLAND" not just "SHEFFIELD" - and I would guess that the first razor is near wedge/quarter hollow, and the second half hollow.

Cheers for the reply Frank! I think I saw an old thread of yours about stabilizers this morning, so almost pinged you a message to see if you knew anything about the history.

And cheers for the info about GB history - that was something I was going to try to read up about later. As you spotted both of them have 'England', though the first razor has 'Trinity Works' as well, which the second doesn't.

My only other GB is a larger 7/8 'Barber's Yorkshire Bite' which which is different again, with 'Trinity Works', but no 'England'. Though it does have a stabilizer.

You're also spot-on about the grinds of the Shakespeares, I hadn't noticed that yet. And one other difference is that the 1st (ivory) razor has no jimping on the top of the tang, whereas the second is top and bottom.

Though might there also be a possibility that some of this just different models? I asked about the numbers on the first one a while back, and no one seemed to know for sure. But I've now got a No.1 to go with the No.0...

 

[cotedupy]

the grind of the second razor came after the grind of the first razor, which does not mean the first razor is older.

Sorry - I'm not sure I quite follow the logic here. You can't put a stabilizer back onto a razor...?

(Or were you meaning the 1/4 hollow vs 1/2 hollow grind, that you correctly spotted?)

 

[Frank Shaves]

Sorry - I'm not sure I quite follow the logic here. You can't put a stabilizer back onto a razor...?

(Or were you meaning the 1/4 hollow vs 1/2 hollow grind, that you correctly spotted?)

I wanted to avoid saying that the type of grind on your second razor was developed after the type of grind on your first razor because I cannot prove it. But that is what I think. I have never seen the type of grind used on your second razor on a razor that (I think) was made before 1860.

The problem is that my time machine is currently broken and I cannot go back in time and prove any of this. And English is my first language .

 

[Frank Shaves]

Regarding Trinity Works, I would read this*:

STRAZORS.com - all about classic razors - George Butler & Co., Sheffield.

www.strazors.com

*I found it but have not had time to read it.

 

[cotedupy]

Regarding Trinity Works, I would read this*:

STRAZORS.com - all about classic razors - George Butler & Co., Sheffield.

www.strazors.com

*I found it but have not had time to read it.

Ah great, ta! I'll have a read of that later.

Hopefully this new GB will prove as good as the two I already have, because I rate them really quite highly. Though as you saw - the grind is quite dissimilar from the first Shakespeare, so I imagine it will at least be 'different' in how it shaves...

 

[cotedupy]

Regarding Trinity Works, I would read this*:

STRAZORS.com - all about classic razors - George Butler & Co., Sheffield.

www.strazors.com

*I found it but have not had time to read it.

Oh also - part of the reason I picked up the new one, as well as being fairly cheap at 20 quid, was that it has the original coffin in really quite good nick. Quite pleased with this...

 

[Gamma]

I believe blade hollowing was being done before the mid/early 1800s, but it seems that hollow-er grinds became more standard/popular during the early 1800s. With that hollowing came stabilizers, or 'double shoulders'. Who did it first is, no doubt, lost to time. Knowing how history goes, it was probably done by some small maker and then 'borrowed' by a bigger manufacturer who made it a 'thing'.

Wedges didn't need 'stabilization' - and I think it was a while before any sort of hollow grind was really 'flexy'... so I have always been inclined to think the earliest double shoulders may have seen the light of day as a grinder's flourish. A way to, visually, soften the line between tang and grind. The more hollow the grind meant the more abrupt that line appears and the 'stabilizer' softens the transition. Compared to a typical mid 1700s blade, a 1930s half-hollow with a stabilizer certainly appears to be much more refined, style-wise. That stabilizer though, dunno if it actually makes the blade stiffer in a practical sense. I have a W&B that seems to be 1/2 hollow via regrind, and it has a stabilizer that I'd say is only a visual thing.

Just looking at the progression of grinding styles from say - the mid 1700s through the mid 1800s, it is evident that grinders were constantly trying to improve their designs both functionally and visually. I haven't seen where any of it was recorded or documented officially though. Who was the first blacksmith to extend a no-tail, into a stub-tail, and then into a longer tail? I think a lot of the design advancements came about naturally because the men making them were actually also using them every day so every time they had an idea they could test it out almost immediately.

 

[Frank Shaves]

I believe blade hollowing was being done before the mid/early 1800s, but it seems that hollow-er grinds became more standard/popular during the early 1800s. With that hollowing came stabilizers, or 'double shoulders'. Who did it first is, no doubt, lost to time. Knowing how history goes, it was probably done by some small maker and then 'borrowed' by a bigger manufacturer who made it a 'thing'.

Keith is right.

Here is a (photo from Acier Fondu) Wade & Butcher from the William Reign - 1830 to 1837. Does not look very hollow to my eyes.

 

[Gamma]

I've had a few WR Wades with similarly proportioned tangs, all were close to 1/4 hollow.
Those heavy blades didn't fade out overnight. Over time hollow grinds become more and more common.

I have a few 'Celebrated' W&Bs that are close to 1/4 hollow, seemingly mid 1800s, and they have stabilizers. Those blades definitely wouldn't flex without the stabilizer, so I don't see it being so much a 'stabilizer', more like a 'double shoulder'.
To my eyes, those Celebrated blades have a more 'refined' look than the chunky 'non stabilized' FBUs from around that same era. KMaybe adding the stabilizer helps the grinder with the hollowing? Dunno... just a thought.

Rattlers from those days had much thinner blades and no shoulder at all, a very sleek look. Seems to me that razor makers were constantly developing their craft skills and showcasing new talents, all while making their wares more appealing to consumers. Looks and aesthetics were constantly evolving. Seems that the presence of the stabilizer probably could have its roots in more than one area of concern.

 

[cotedupy]

I believe blade hollowing was being done before the mid/early 1800s, but it seems that hollow-er grinds became more standard/popular during the early 1800s. With that hollowing came stabilizers, or 'double shoulders'. Who did it first is, no doubt, lost to time. Knowing how history goes, it was probably done by some small maker and then 'borrowed' by a bigger manufacturer who made it a 'thing'.

Wedges didn't need 'stabilization' - and I think it was a while before any sort of hollow grind was really 'flexy'... so I have always been inclined to think the earliest double shoulders may have seen the light of day as a grinder's flourish. A way to, visually, soften the line between tang and grind. The more hollow the grind meant the more abrupt that line appears and the 'stabilizer' softens the transition. Compared to a typical mid 1700s blade, a 1930s half-hollow with a stabilizer certainly appears to be much more refined, style-wise. That stabilizer though, dunno if it actually makes the blade stiffer in a practical sense. I have a W&B that seems to be 1/2 hollow via regrind, and it has a stabilizer that I'd say is only a visual thing.

Just looking at the progression of grinding styles from say - the mid 1700s through the mid 1800s, it is evident that grinders were constantly trying to improve their designs both functionally and visually. I haven't seen where any of it was recorded or documented officially though. Who was the first blacksmith to extend a no-tail, into a stub-tail, and then into a longer tail? I think a lot of the design advancements came about naturally because the men making them were actually also using them every day so every time they had an idea they could test it out almost immediately.

Cheers K!

I don’t know a massive amount the history of razor styles &c., so all very interesting.