What's new

Oldest Single Ring known

So, by way of attacking this question from a different angle, what are the serial numbers of any double rings we have out there?
 
Im Curious, is it possible for an inner barrel/shaft of any single ring or double ring be inter changed? Im pretty sure it can be done? And if someone doest that there is no way of telling the real time that razor wad made? That change Barrel/Shaft could of been from a double ring?
 
OK, here's another entry on this controversial subject. I picked up this single ring in a Times Square box for a steal, hoping that it would turn out to be an early 1906 4xx,xxx serial number.

proxy.php



It arrived this week, and of course my first action was to pull out the shaft and check the serial number. Much to my astonishment, it appears to read 280,226 . Got out the magnifying glass and could not detect even a hint of a letter before the number. The blade plate has no markings, and the tube has the 1904 pat. stamping.

proxy.php

proxy.php

proxy.php


After perusing quite a few threads on the subject, i could only find mention of one other single ring with a 2xx,xxx number (288,248), which was mentioned here: http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...from-1905?highlight=lowest+number+single+ring
Of course, the single and double ring shafts are identical, so there is no way to really tell if one was switched at some point in the past 105 years.

I'm still happy to have a great old case and razor for $20, but disappointed that I may never know for sure if it is a prototype, test market razor, or just a mis-matched set.


Think you might be able to contact Gillette? Would they be any help?
 
Im Curious, is it possible for an inner barrel/shaft of any single ring or double ring be inter changed? Im pretty sure it can be done? And if someone doest that there is no way of telling the real time that razor wad made? That change Barrel/Shaft could of been from a double ring?

That is one theory of how these have come to be (either through repairs, marriages, or outright deception), but there appear to be so many examples, it's hard to discount them all. The advertising angle is one approach which agrees with Krumholz/Gillette's assertion of June 1906. However, part of what I'm trying to find out is a survey of actual serial number mappings to dates. The early serial number/date mapping is just a guess based on approximate production numbers.

So, by way of attacking this question from a different angle, what are the serial numbers of any double rings we have out there?

The lowest ive seen is 4647 :eek:) but there could be a lower one out there?

I was referring to the latest/highest double ring serial numbers. It is an interesting exercise to find the earliest surviving serial number too though.
 
Wait a tick... I'm at work and my pictures are not accessible to me, but I had a non-serial numbered pat apl'd for (Still do technically but can't find it) Double Ring who's barrel absolutely was NOT interchangeable with any single ring. Even when fully twisted on it left a gap at the bottom. Trying to put a single ring innards into the double ring's handle didn't allow the razor's threads to fully engage as the barrel of the double ring was simply too long.
Are most single ring and double ring parts interchangeable?
 
There is a listing B&B members who own a double ring and the serial numbers in the wiki.

http://wiki.badgerandblade.com/Gillette_Double_Ring

Those are all consistent with the serial number charts. However, two are a lot higher than the "low number" single rings we've had.

I wonder if those showing up outside the US has any significance? Perhaps they used the leftover barrels for the export market rather than have multiple products in the states?
 
Wait a tick... I'm at work and my pictures are not accessible to me, but I had a non-serial numbered pat apl'd for (Still do technically but can't find it) Double Ring who's barrel absolutely was NOT interchangeable with any single ring. Even when fully twisted on it left a gap at the bottom. Trying to put a single ring innards into the double ring's handle didn't allow the razor's threads to fully engage as the barrel of the double ring was simply too long.
Are most single ring and double ring parts interchangeable?

I just checked my two Double Rings -- one is a 1905, and one is a pre-patent, non-serialed 1903/'04 -- against an oldish Single Ring (1907), and my non-serialed barrel is definitely larger than the other two. The knob is slightly longer than the other two, as is the overall barrel. I can use any of the other two inner barrels to screw up that pre-patent razor good and tight, but that barrel won't work in either of the other two razors. The threaded shaft on the cap bottoms out inside the barrel before the knob hits the bottom of the handle tube. However, the 1905 Double Ring's barrel is completely interchangeable with the Single Ring's.

So, assuming I've got a valid sampling here, it would be possible that we could be seeing Double Rings of any age showing up with barrels from a Single Ring. Or Single Rings showing up with barrels from a later model Double Ring.
 
That makes sense. I'm still having difficulty finding the pictures and it was a while ago that I last saw the pre-patent Double Ring, so I'm sure that your findings are the same as mine.
I just wonder if all the pre-patent no serial number double rings were larger and not compatibly-threaded for the later double and single rings or if there is another solution to the mystery of the larger double rings.
 
I'm not sure that this will work but I've combined the details from this thread, the Double Ring details from the wiki and the details from some other set you can link to from my Gold Single Ring set thread to come up with a serial number order list (the ones with '0' as the serial numbers are the ones with no serial number):

Owner/ Location
Serial NumberType
Canberra, Australia0Double Ring
Charleston, WV0Double Ring
Chicago, IL0Double Ring
IL, USA0Double Ring
Wichita, KS0Double Ring
Glendale, NY4647Double Ring
Dongguan, China6768Double Ring
Indiana10190Double Ring
Harrisonburg, VA12789Double Ring
Michigan15673Double Ring
Jenks, Oklahoma16951Double Ring
Charleston, WV21964Double Ring
Canberra, Australia27300Double Ring
Houston, TX33019Double Ring
Detroit, MI38815Double Ring
Birmingham, AL44757Double Ring
Charleston, WV45107Double Ring
Appleton, WI50038Double Ring
Dongguan, China58903Double Ring
Canberra, Australia61408Double Ring
CA, USA62936Double Ring
Weston, MA USA63837Double Ring
Indiana64345Double Ring
Portland, OR USA209740Double Ring
Iowa214432Double Ring
Detroit, MI236598Double Ring
Jacksonville, FL239848Double Ring
Parma, Italy256251Double Ring
San Antonio, TX265555Double Ring
Dongguan, China272396Double Ring
CA, USA273926Double Ring
prophetic_joe278278Single Ring
shekoujay280226Single Ring
Manning280868Single Ring
Elmerwood281802Single Ring
t_Rick288248Single Ring
shekoujay290609Single Ring
GoTeeGuy299385Single Ring
Mark1966G306068Gold Single Ring
eBay sighting308091Single Ring
quailrunnerG308151Gold Single Ring (engraved)
eBay sighting319510Single Ring
BroJohn320776Single Ring
GB5324834Single Ring
shekoujay329875Single Ring
sleddog332759Single Ring
staxchipswell337100Single Ring
Mr-Razor337905Single Ring
TCP359651Single Ring
Oldguy395005Single Ring
tnsplayerG401741Gold Single Ring
shavefreakG401861Gold Single Ring (engraved)
Dongguan, China458142Double Ring
highball589068Double Ring
Quebec, Canada589850Double Ring








So you can see that the early ones are clearly predominantly Double Rings but Single Rings dominate from 278278 - suggesting the traditional year dating cut offs or commencement dates may be a little out.

The two high number Double Rings are just odd - left overs? With Gillette you just never know.

Interestingly the four known gold plated Single Rings are grouped close-ish together in two pairs, both with a plan and engraved one!

I'd pop this in the wiki but every time I touch that it crashes on me :mad3:

EDIT: added Elmerwood's new addition in

EDIT_2: added in highball's double ring mentioned in a post here.

EDIT_3: added in sleddog's SR
 
Last edited:
Nice chart Mark. I was curious as to the earliest single ring we've seen as I just picked up a new one with #281802. So this one falls in with the rest of the early single rings.
 
That's a nice chart, and heartening that it has a nice clean cutoff between singles and doubles.

It does suggest the old serial number charts are off by about 100,000 units. This is really no surprise since the old chart was based on a SWAG by Gillette based on production numbers.

The June 1906 date does still hold water because that is backed up by searches of advertising. That is about when they changed the model they were selling. The discrepancy between dates and serials could be due to production lag, built up inventory of interchangeable parts or any number of other factors.
 
Nice chart Mark. I was curious as to the earliest single ring we've seen as I just picked up a new one with #281802. So this one falls in with the rest of the early single rings.

Added into the chart!

That's a nice chart, and heartening that it has a nice clean cutoff between singles and doubles.

It does suggest the old serial number charts are off by about 100,000 units. This is really no surprise since the old chart was based on a SWAG by Gillette based on production numbers.

The June 1906 date does still hold water because that is backed up by searches of advertising. That is about when they changed the model they were selling. The discrepancy between dates and serials could be due to production lag, built up inventory of interchangeable parts or any number of other factors.

So does this imply that production estimates of the Double Rings are inflated by about 100,000?
 
Yes. This thread has mostly been about figuring out the actual start of production for the Single Ring, but that is a definite implication of the numbers.

I think this is strong evidence, there were around 100,000 fewer Double Rings produced than first thought. Something in the neighborhood of 250,000 total production (marked with the patent date).
 
Top Bottom