Aristocrat Conundrum

**Cal1961** · 05-29-2012, 05:38 AM

I have three Aristocrats. No's 16, 20 and 21. According to Achim the 20 is the oldest at 1938 and the 16 & 21 are 1948. But when you look at them the 20 and 21 are very similiar apart from the fact that the 20 is an OC. They both have crimped ends on the handles and no bar between the blade doors. The 16 has a closed handle and a bar between the blade doors.

So the 20 and 21 have a similiar appearance and yet there is 10 years between them!!

Would love to know the designers thought process. It looks like for the No 21 (1948) they went back to the NO 20 (1938) design even though they were producing the No 16 in the same year (1948)

Hope the above makes sense

**jbradley** · 05-29-2012, 07:30 AM

I think the answer is to send the #20 to me. Obviously it's defective.

**Cal1961** · 05-29-2012, 08:05 AM

Some photos to go with original @aristocrat Conundrum' post. L to R No 16, No 20 No21. Sorry dont know how to attach the photos to my original 'Aristocrat Conundrum' post.

**MacDaddy** · 05-29-2012, 09:20 AM

Two things to keep in mind here: The first is that the disruptions caused by WWII make the "distance" between those two models a lot smaller than it would seem just looking at the dates. It also makes it hard to tell exactly what was happening as factories returned to civilian production after the war.

The second thing is that the dates that Achim has up are not necessarily intended to indicate the dates that a certain model was available -- rather, he's attempting to date his particular example as specifically as is possible. That is, just because you might see a single year next to an example, that doesn't mean that it was the only year that razor was made.

I think what's probably likely here is that after the war as Gillette resumed production they initially used the older handle style because that's what they were tooled up for. And if I were betting, I'd say that they were back to production on those earlier than 1948 -- we do know that there was some production in England at least as early as 1946, according to this ad scan of Achim's -- but that 1948 was probably an overlap year as they cut their designs over to the "Rocket-style" handles with the gap above the knob.

**Cal1961** · 05-29-2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by MacDaddy

Two things to keep in mind here: The first is that the disruptions caused by WWII make the "distance" between those two models a lot smaller than it would seem just looking at the dates. It also makes it hard to tell exactly what was happening as factories returned to civilian production after the war.

The second thing is that the dates that Achim has up are not necessarily intended to indicate the dates that a certain model was available -- rather, he's attempting to date his particular example as specifically as is possible. That is, just because you might see a single year next to an example, that doesn't mean that it was the only year that razor was made.

I think what's probably likely here is that after the war as Gillette resumed production they initially used the older handle style because that's what they were tooled up for. And if I were betting, I'd say that they were back to production on those earlier than 1948 -- we do know that there was some production in England at least as early as 1946, according to this ad scan of Achim's -- but that 1948 was probably an overlap year as they cut their designs over to the "Rocket-style" handles with the gap above the knob.

Porter

Thank you. The knowledge that you and the other experts have is superb. Helps to solve some issues that seem to be very confusing at first sight.

**Copierguy** · 05-29-2012, 12:24 PM

Beautiful looking sets.....congrats.
Yeah that Porter is a handy guy to have around.

**Cal1961** · 05-29-2012, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Copierguy

Beautiful looking sets.....congrats.
Yeah that Porter is a handy guy to have around.

Thanks ... Very lucky as sets 16 and 21 unused and 20 is mint. Well I should say unused until I managed to get them. As I am not a collector but a user I do not feel so bad about using them occasionally.

**Jake** · 05-30-2012, 08:54 PM

Well let us know which of those razors you prefer and why. They are all excellent razors and you're bound to love the shave they provide.

**Cal1961** · 05-31-2012, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Jake

Well let us know which of those razors you prefer and why. They are all excellent razors and you're bound to love the shave they provide.

Shaved with the 16 yesterday and the 21 this morning. Both shaves BBS. Difficult to say which I favour as 1st shave with the 21 and have had the 16 for a while. Will use the 21 for the next couple of shaves and the try the 20. Then make a decision as to my favourite. Right now I love them all so could be a close run thing.

**Henrik** · 05-31-2012, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by MacDaddy

Two things to keep in mind here: The first is that the disruptions caused by WWII make the "distance" between those two models a lot smaller than it would seem just looking at the dates. It also makes it hard to tell exactly what was happening as factories returned to civilian production after the war.

The second thing is that the dates that Achim has up are not necessarily intended to indicate the dates that a certain model was available -- rather, he's attempting to date his particular example as specifically as is possible. That is, just because you might see a single year next to an example, that doesn't mean that it was the only year that razor was made
I think what's probably likely here is that after the war as Gillette resumed production they initially used the older handle style because that's what they were tooled up for. And if I were betting, I'd say that they were back to production on those earlier than 1948 -- we do know that there was some production in England at least as early as 1946, according to this ad scan of Achim's -- but that 1948 was probably an overlap year as they cut their designs over to the "Rocket-style" handles with the gap above the knob.

I asked about the same question some time back. I found the time gap between the #15 and the #21 somewhat strange. However with the end discussions of that thread and with Porters wise comments here- I lean to his "theory". Makes sense- all the way.