Gillette Single Rings with British Patent Numbers

mblakele said:

You could test that part – at least if you are willing to give up the patina. If the baking soda and foil process removes the patina while producing a sulfurous smell, that means silver.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but no, I'm not willing to risk the patina. It took almost 100 years to get where it is, I'm not going to wait another century for it to look this good again.

MacDaddy said:

Just so everyone's clear, no, that's not what we're talking about when we say the "G-inside-D mark." What we're talking about there are the smaller hallmark-type marks like this:

From what I can find it does seem that it was a legal requirement, but that enforcement may have been somewhat scatter-shot, particularly by the time we get to Gillette's use of the mark. It seems that the requirement was simplified in 1860 to require the maker's mark -- "initials or other private mark" -- in a square. It is mentioned here in The French Treaty and Tariff of 1860, edited by H. Reader Lack, Esq.

Click to expand...

Good find, thanks. That rule applied to gold or silver plate, which explains that question too. But it requires a "perfect square" - so other marks, like a star or a cartouche, would suggest something else?

mblakele said:

Good find, thanks. That rule applied to gold or silver plate, which explains that question too. But it requires a "perfect square" - so other marks, like a star or a cartouche, would suggest something else?

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure, but I'm more inclined to think that things just got a little loosey-goosey by the early 1900s. I've found references like this one that seem to suggest that makers didn't always pay much attention to this requirement:

Ce poinçon « obligatoire » est souvent « oublié » par les fabricants qui apposent alors leur poinçon de marque qu’ils estiment suffisant.

Click to expand...

Muddled through with Google Translate and my own non-existent knowledge of French: This "mandatory" mark is often "forgotten" by manufacturers who deem their own brand mark sufficient.

GBinOZ said:

Thanks or that information dpm802. That is the only example so far found with that placement for the logo. I'll enter both razors on the Wiki.

Click to expand...

Here is a close-up of the Diamond logo, on the top of the bottom plate.
It is very faint in person. It actually shows up better in this pic than it does in real life.



Nowhere does it say "Made in England," I just assume it is because of the British Patent number. There is nothing else on the outside of the razor except for the Serial Number.

dpm802 said:

Here is a close-up of the Diamond logo, on the top of the bottom plate.
It is very faint in person. It actually shows up better in this pic than it does in real life.

View attachment 483471

Nowhere does it say "Made in England," I just assume it is because of the British Patent number. There is nothing else on the outside of the razor except for the Serial Number.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was in error here. That is the normal placement for these razors, plus the same logo under the cap. Thanks to Porter for picking me up on that.

Cheers, George

GBinOZ said:

It shows on this page http://www.925-1000.com/Ffrench_marks.html

French Silverplate Marks - Maker's Trademark in a rectangle or square cartouche.

Click to expand...

mblakele said:

Good find, thanks. That rule applied to gold or silver plate, which explains that question too. But it requires a "perfect square" - so other marks, like a star or a cartouche, would suggest something else?

Click to expand...

According to the link above the French convention was a rectangle or square cartouche. A five point star has been associated with Italy in a similar page which I can't locate again at the moment.

Cheers, George

I was wondering if Montreal might help us estimate production numbers for Leicester. First I went back to the Bittues article in the 1918 Blade:



When M. Bittues wrote "300 razors a day" for current production ca. 1918, do you suppose he meant a modern work-week including time for holidays, or every day of the year? It makes a difference: almost 110,000 razors annually vs 75,000. Either way I wish we had the charts that he mentions in that article. They seem to be missing from the Blade edition, but Bittues mentions an uptick in exports from Montreal starting in 1912.

Bittues also mentions having sold one razor to "every thirteen and one half men" in Canada: about 7.4%. Earlier in the article he estimates the market at 3.8M men. Does he really mean domestic sales in Canada were about 280,000 razors in the entire period of 1906-18? That seems very low. Perhaps most of their production went to exports?

Next, the Flanagan article from July 1918 describes expansion to 800 razors a day. But is that 200,000 razors annually, or 290,000?



Next http://books.google.com/books?id=2oEpAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA170 states in 1918 that annual output was 750,000 razors - in the prior year 1917? The same source reports that combined production capacity of Boston and Montreal was 4500 razors per day - capacity, not output. That suggests problems, perhaps weak demand or war-related shortages, because the two factories would be busy only 167 days of the year. The same source reports 1912 production at 403,877 razors, then goes on to report 557,025 razors in the first eight months of 1917. Contrast those numbers with 600,000 razors in 1912, and 650,000 in 1913 reported by http://books.google.com/books?id=NQtXAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA78&lpg=RA5-PA78. The difference might be sloppy reporting. Or maybe we can do some math. If Boston and Montreal together made 400,000 in 1912, and worldwide production was 600,000, that suggests 200,000 from Leicester. The serial number lore for Boston says 180,000 were made there, suggesting 220,000 in Montreal. Maybe.

Another possibly useful data point comes from the 1920 IRC case. According to that case the August 1915 contract between Gillette USA and UK required minimum orders of "50,000 razors annually". That contract was for the UK and colonies, and did not mention the European continent like the 1907 contract did.

mblakele said:

Thanks for the data. I added it to Gillette_England_Dating_Information. Please check it to make sure I have it correct. Yours does not have a star mark nor a G-in-D mark? Usually those would be on the underside of the guard plate, if present.

The short answer to your question is that we know very little about these razors, and this thread is a place to talk about them. Much of what you read here will be speculation. For example I would speculate that your razor was made 1910-1915, just based on the diamond logo and what I think we have learned about the Leicester plant. But that is just a semi-educated guess, at least as likely to be wrong as right.

Click to expand...

Thanks - that's great! The information entered in the wiki is correct, and there are no markings on the bottom of the baseplate.

This thread is absolutely fascinating.
Also, nobody told me what amazing shavers these razors are! I'm blown away by it...

mblakele said:

The short answer to your question is that we know very little about these razors, and this thread is a place to talk about them. Much of what you read here will be speculation. For example I would speculate that your razor was made 1910-1915, just based on the diamond logo and what I think we have learned about the Leicester plant. But that is just a semi-educated guess, at least as likely to be wrong as right.

Click to expand...

Keeping the above quote firmly in mind, I have prepared this abbreviated table to assist in presenting my theories.



The first thing to note is the pattern in the razors shown in red. These razors are marked using the same protocol that Boston introduced later to accommodate the marking of ball-end and pocket razors. There are reports that Gillette established factories in Paris and Berlin which were supplied with machinery by Boston. There is a divergence of opinion between members as to whether the production from these factories consisted of razors and blades or just blades. The valid question raised is, if production included razors, where are examples? One school of thought is that such razors must bear the relevant patent for the country of production, in which case no examples have been found. I am proposing an alternative theory.

My reading of the research presented so far is that the Paris factory started razor production in early 1908 with machinery supplied by Boston and on the proviso that it would be under British management. My opinion is that the red F series may have been produced in Paris. I think that Leicester was in production in mid 1908 in the premises initially rented from, and subsequently purchased from, the Gordon Boot company. My opinion is that the red E series were razors produced on that site prior to the opening in Jan 1909 of the new extensions built on the same site. My opinion is that Berlin may have started producing razors, once again with machinery supplied from Boston, shortly after the purchase of the Leicester operation by the British Company as a going concern, and that Berlin was also under British management. My opinion is that the red H series may have been produced in Berlin.

Of particular interest is the variation of patents that occurs mainly in the F series. Mike Blakele presented a theory some time ago that British patented razors may not have been well received in the French market and that Gillette’s reaction may have been to drop the patent from razors and/or adopt a patent (PAT.NOV.15.04.N) which was not nationally descriptive, and I find this argument compelling. As a continuation of this strategy I think that for the opening of the new buildings at Leicester, the British Company decided to make their production distinctive by changing the marking protocol and making the patent more inconspicuous by moving it to the tip of the inner cylinder. I think that if razor production did occur at Paris and Berlin it was short lived, probably confined to 1908 and early 1909 at most, at which stage their razor production machinery was sent to Leicester, and that the black E, F and H razors were all made at Leicester from 1909.

We then come to the question of when razor production ceased at Leicester. One school of thought is that the start of WWI in mid 1914 created manpower shortages which led to Leicester ceasing production in 1915. The fact that the British company went into liquidation and the High Court was involved in the case involving the transfer back to the US company leads me to think that perhaps production may have been curtailed around 1913. Marshall states that Berlin was closed because they were unable to effect efficient production, which I regard as nonsense. He then refers to this experience on the continent, which I feel included Paris. I think that Marshall felt free to denigrate a defeated enemy but not an ally. I think that Boston wanted multiple factories but the English company allowed the nationalism that was rife at the time to overwhelm their business judgement. Looking at Marshall’s statement regarding the closure of Leicester and moving back to London being beneficial to the English gentlemen management who lived in London and who were no longer inconvenienced by Leicester leads me to suspect that the English company management style may have been of the Ivory Tower persuasion. If we look at the production figures that we have at present we see an average of per year of 105K razors on Mike’s 1909-1915 or 123K on my 1908-1913, neither of which may have met Boston’s expectations and may have prompted their decision to resume control.

To summarise, I think the red razors were made 1908 either in the three European factories, or the old Gordon premises Leicester. I think that the black series were made in parallel at Leicester beginning in 1909 and ending in 1913. Members and owners can choose their own start and finish dates based on what they consider to be the preponderance of evidence. The attempt to distribute production over the intervening period will likely give rise to more dating errors for individual razors than the endpoint selection.

Once again I should emphasise that these opinions are speculative and based on research available at this time. To requote Mike, they are at least as likely to be wrong as right.

Cheers, George

That sounds like a good theory George.

Sounds like a lot of trouble moving the machinery around like that, only to make a few razors though.
So now, not only I don't know when it was made, I also don't know where ...

I kid, I kid ... Nice write up George!

There are some good ideas there, but I have doubts about Paris and Berlin as productive factories, and about more than one factory in Leicester. Basically the problem is historical evidence, or lack of any. In the absence of evidence I favor simple explanations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor.

Without much evidence for razors from Paris or Berlin, I find it easier to believe that all the razors marked with BR.PAT.No.28763.02 were made in Leicester. We have pretty good documentation that Leicester turned out razors from 1909-1914, with lower probabilities that it was active in late 1908 or early 1915. The different series could have indicated the destination: E for England, UK, and colonies; F for France and miscellaneous parts of Europe; H for Hamburg and the Grell company in Germany. That also fits with the silver plate markings as we understand them.

There are still oddities, but I find them manageable. For example it seems plausible, if unproven, that Leicester marked the F razors "PAT.NOV.15.04.N" to avoid the appearance of British imperialism.

The rest of this post will explore the lack of evidence and perhaps correct some misconceptions. I apologize for the length.

For Paris all we know is the Bittues went there in 1905. According to Flanagan he was to "open the plant there and effect the working of the French patent". This was before Bittues established the Montreal plant in mid-1906. However we have no evidence that any razors were produced in Paris ca. 1905. We might expect them to look something like early Montreal work, but with different markings. What about ca. 1908-14? Do we have any evidence that Boston sent new equipment to Paris then? Any evidence at all that there was production in Paris ca. 1908-14? Without that I have a hard time crediting that those early F series razors F021233 and F165374 were made in France. Why would a Paris mark their production with a UK patent, or a USA patent, when they had a French patent available?

Berlin is a similar story. We have evidence from Marshall in the 1919 Blade and from a German lawsuit that Boston sent equipment for a new Berlin plant in 1908 or 1909. Advertising suggests that it was at Grosse Frankfurterstr. 137. Marshall says that it did not work out, but he is silent on whether or not any finished razors were sold. The summary of the lawsuit does not help much there: it says that manufacturing stopped in 1909 and the equipment went to England, but the subsidiary continued to operate as a sales company. It may not have sold any locally-produced razors. If it did,, have we seen any examples? Razors like H000882, H003530, and H028400 look unlikely to me. They all bear the British patent, but we know that DRP No 162438 was issued in 1905 so why not use it? And why use a H instead of D for Deutschland or G for Germany? Instead I think H is for Hamburg, where Grell Grell imported Gillette razors both before and after the Berlin experiment.

Now, G5031 might possibly be an example from Berlin. Compare its unusual lack of knurling to some of the early Montreal razors. But I would find it more plausible with DRP mark instead of a British one. Also this old post might describe a razor with "DRP No 162438". I have sent a PM to ozzy_scl, who posted about it. Apparently it was marked with "DRP No 162438" and with 775134, the number for the USA patent. That would be unusual for the USA patent: use of the number instead of the date. It might turn out to be a post-WWI razor.

Moving on to Leicester, we have the question of one factory or two. I am unaware of any evidence for two factories. We believe that in 1907 the company decided to set up manufacturing in England. By March 1908 the company had negotiated a seven year lease on the Gordon Boot Works in Leicester, with an option to buy. In 1909 the factory in Leicester was said to be complete. We have no evidence that any razors were manufactured in Leicester 1907-08, but late in 1908 might have been possible. We do not know if the option to buy was exercised, but it might have been. We do not know if the boot works was refurbished, or knocked down and rebuilt. In short we have no evidence of any second factory in Leicester. So the simplest narrative is that they refurbished and expanded the boot works to suit their needs.

I also prefer the simplest explanation of the voluntary liquidation and reorganization of the UK company. We know that the Gillette companies were reorganizing worldwide in 1912, turning themselves into Massachusetts companies. In 1917 Poors reported that the new 1912 company manufactured razors at the Leicester plant until August 1915, which matches the report from Marshall. Porter already did a fine job of covering other details at http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...-British-Patent-Numbers?p=6364860#post6364860 - and so I will leave it there.

nuclearblast said:

Sounds like a lot of trouble moving the machinery around like that, only to make a few razors though.

Click to expand...

Yes it does Edgar. Even more trouble to build factories and move machinery around like that, only to make no razors at all, as is suggested.

View attachment 483861

Here are 2 posts by Alex which I believe contains a possible reason why the French and German patents were not used for razor markings in 1908. Boston had experienced so many problems with these patents that the Berlin and Paris factories were established as sub-branches of the English company and therefore used the British patent or the suffixed US patent. They also provide evidence of production in France and Germany.
1.

alex2363 said:

Patents have to be worked in each country, that means that the product/razors must be made in the country granting the patents within 3 years. This patent law did not apply to England though, so Gillette was safe over there. But it did apply in France and Gillette only had til the last day of 1905 to produce a razor and site.

Gillette exec Heilborn was in France negotiating with a French cutler to make the razors but the plans fell through after disagreement on terms and a October fire that wiped the machinery in the prospective French building for the razor making. Something had to be done fast, so Gillette sent executive Bittues to France in November to set up a quick production line in France so the patent could be worked before the end of year 1905 deadline. [just 2 months away].

Bittues looked at many buildings in France and settled on [old bike seat maker building] American Saddle Company on 24 Rue Cuachy rd. After a fast installation of machinery from the USA and some rented machinery from the Saddle company, Bittues managed to set up the first ever over seas Gillette factory by the end of the year
[ before the patent deadline].

A few years later [ 1906-09?] , the French courts found that Gillette established the factory only to serve as a Stopgap to protect the patent and was not a serious attempt to make razors and blades......A year after [ 1909?] Gillette moved out of the American saddle plant, Gillette then went with the original French cutler who they first picked to make the razors, but the patent was nullified by the French courts for lack of working.....it seems that they never had a patent after 1906.

In 1907 Gillette director Heilborn was in Germany, he wrote back to Boston that the "Berlin market was growing and we should be manufacturing there soon as possible, and Berlin is a better site than Hamburg".....by the end of 1908 the Berlin factory was set up and making razors and blades. By the same time the finishing touches were being made to the Leicester England plant, by 1909 Gillete had 3 European factories. The London sales office was in charge of all the European business.

Russel Adams book " The Man and his wonderful shaving device" p68-69

Click to expand...

2.
Porter, the patents working laws varied with each country( Patent working law-which meant that the product had to be worked/manufactured in that country or patent would lapse). According to Gillette counsel and sells dirctor Pelham England did not have such patent law. That meant that Gillette did not have to worry about any foreign patent issues in England. Gillette made razors and blades in the England factory after a high demand for the product was realized in England and Europe in general. So Gillette actually made razors and blades there. It was not just blades.

The worked patent law did apply to France and Gillette did have to hurry up and set up a factory before the Patent deadline. Gillette finally found a small place that was a old bike shop and set up the first foreign factory, just in time to save the patent from revocation. However, the French government figured things out few years later and ruled against the patent because Gillette really just used the factory location as stop gag to protect the patent. Gillette relocated to another location in France to make razors and blades, and they had to oblige to make both razors and blades since the French government were sticklers to this issue.....In this case Gillette most likely did not make razors in France until a few years later.

Germany had many complex patent laws and Gillette had many patents filed there. Gillette was not aware of patent cut off dates due to the many patent filings and the entanglement of infringement/suit court cases. However it did not matter since German law provision stated that if " large demand was supplied goods made abroad" the patent would not be working and revoked. So Gillette could not make razors elsewhere and send them there since it would be a patent working issue. Gillette had no other choice than to make a factory in Germany that made razors and blades. In 1908 razors and blades were being made and shipped out of Berlin factory. At this time the finishing touches were put in the Leicester factory too......so it seems that all 3 countries, England, Germany and France did make razors, not just blades. France did start at a later date due to the working patent issue.


Here are some transcripts from sources that wouldd be difficult to read in their original source:

Calameo publication The Gillette Company 75 years, 1901-1976 it states:
“The year 1908 presented a problem, however, for it was the last year in which Gillette could sell its products under patent protection in England and Germany without also manufacturing locally. To guarantee its increasingly impressive prospects outside of the U.S., the company immediately allotted additional money for equipment in plants already under construction in these countries.”

From Dunn’s Review: That the popularity of the Gillette Safety razor is not alone confined to the United States is emphasised by the fact that factories for the output of this most useful device have already been erected in France and Canada, while a plant will soon be installed in Germany, as well as one of a similar size in England.

mr-razor said:

The Leicester plant was completed in 1909:

View attachment 440070

Click to expand...

GBinOZ said:

Extract from Blade article by KCG:
View attachment 455276

Extract From Blade by Marshall:
View attachment 455277View attachment 455278

the "agreement dated September 30, 1908, it purchased from the Boston company as from June 30, 1908, as a going concern". In a legal contract to be a going concern the factory would have needed to be in operation, not idle.

KCG states "a factory was established in France to supply the demand there for the Gillette Safety Razor and Blades".

Click to expand...

Above is material relating to Leicester. At one stage I thought there may have been 2 factories in Leicester but I have already, in the past, flagged that possibility as erroneous. I am using KCG as a source and saying that land was acquired in Leicester to build a factory. That land had the Boots factory already on it and the process involved entering into a lease (you don't purchase a lease) and subsequently purchasing the site and commencing the construction of additions, these being "completed in 1909. I am an advocate of Occam's razor, but I also rely on the principles of common sense and business acumen. Why would any competent management driven by the time imperitives of new laws requiring actual production and mounting European orders let a leased factory, "one of the best in the district" and "supplied with essential machinery" lay idle. What company would proceed to build substantial additions on land over which they did not possess a freehold title. Additional proof is provided in the fact that the sale to the British Company was made as a going concern.

Definition of 'Going Concern'
A term for a company that has the resources needed in order to continue to operate indefinitely.

MacDaddy said:

One possible counter-argument is that the German plant was functioning not as a German company, but rather as a branch of the British company, and as such might still have used the British patent as its primary marker.

View attachment 454507
View attachment 454508

Click to expand...

Look very carefully at the above document in light of what is claimed below.

mblakele said:

Basically the problem is historical evidence, or lack of any.

The different series could have indicated the destination: E for England, UK, and colonies; F for France and miscellaneous parts of Europe; H for Hamburg and the Grell company in Germany. Agreed

Leicester marked the F razors "PAT.NOV.15.04.N" to avoid the appearance of British imperialism. Agreed

Why would a Paris mark their production with a UK patent, or a USA patent, when they had a French patent available?
Addressed above.

Berlin is a similar story. The summary of the lawsuit does not help much there: it says that manufacturing stopped in 1909 and the equipment went to England, but the subsidiary continued to operate as a sales company. It may not have sold any locally-produced razors. It actually says a lot more than what is quoted here. It says Berlin was a branch of the London house established for the manufacture and sale of safety razors and other similar goods. It says that only part of the manufacuring equipment was sent to London and that Berlin made occassional sales of the goods until Feb 1910. Most importantly, it also says that the court ruled that Gillette did actually carry on a business in Germany and used it's mark on the products.

If it did,, have we seen any examples? Razors like H000882, H003530, and H028400 look unlikely to me. They all bear the British patent, but we know that DRP No 162438 was issued in 1905 so why not use it? Addressed above.

And why use a H instead of D for Deutschland or G for Germany? Because, like A and B, G was already being used by Boston for their Gold series and D would have been too close to the US series numbers.

Instead I think H is for Hamburg, where Grell Grell imported Gillette razors both before and after the Berlin experiment. I agree.

Now, G5031 might possibly be an example from Berlin. No, as discussed in multiple threads, it's a US made Gold series.

Moving on to Leicester, we have the question of one factory or two. I am unaware of any evidence for two factories. We believe that in 1907 the company decided to set up manufacturing in England. By March 1908 the company had negotiated a seven year lease on the Gordon Boot Works in Leicester, with an option to buy. In 1909 the factory in Leicester was said to be complete. Addressed above.
We have no evidence that any razors were manufactured in Leicester 1907-08, but late in 1908 might have been possible. Already a going concern by end of June 1908.
We do not know if the option to buy was exercised, but it might have been. We do not know if the boot works was refurbished, or knocked down and rebuilt. In short we have no evidence of any second factory in Leicester. So the simplest narrative is that they refurbished and expanded the boot works to suit their needs. See above - common sense and business acumen.

I also prefer the simplest explanation of the voluntary liquidation and reorganization of the UK company.
Definition of Voluntary Liquidation:
A liquidation that is supported by a company's shareholders, as opposed to an involuntary liquidation forced by Chapter 7 bankruptcy. A voluntary liquidation can occur in two situations. One is a members' voluntary liquidation when the directors of a solvent company decide to liquidate the company (with shareholder approval), and declare that they will be able to fulfill all creditor obligations in 12 months. The other situation is a creditors' voluntary liquidation, when the directors approach an insolvency professional for assistance in liquidation since they will not be able to fulfill creditors' obligations.

Click to expand...

Nearly all of the above has been addressed in previous posts in this thread. To suggest that there is a lack of any historical evidence just indicates that the said evidence doesn't fit into narrow preconceived ideas. Perhaps there is a case for another look at this quote from another thread: "Discussions like this one tend to suffer from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporting_bias - more specifically an outcome bias."

Finally, I believe that I have provided above a substantial number of historical reports for my point of view. The challenge now is to provide the actual historical evidence for the opposing points of view. Members can then decide which contains the preponderance of actual evidence.

Cheers, George

With respect, I found it difficult to sort out the formatting in your last post. Maybe you could edit it to sort out where you were responding to me, vs quoting someone else?

However I think I can respond to this point:

GBinOZ said:

It actually says a lot more than what is quoted here. It says Berlin was a branch of the London house established for the manufacture and sale of safety razors and other similar goods. It says that only part of the manufacuring equipment was sent to London and that Berlin made occassional sales of the goods until Feb 1910. Most importantly, it also says that the court ruled that Gillette did actually carry on a business in Germany and used it's mark on the products.

Click to expand...

Sales do not equal manufacturing. I agree that there was an attempt at a factory in Berlin. I agree that there was a Berlin sales operation. However the razors sold by the Berlin sales company could have come from Leicester, just as the razors sold by the 1915-18 UK sales company came from Boston or Montreal, or the razors sold by Grell came from overseas. I would like to see evidence that the Berlin factory produced salable razors, but so far that evidence has not appeared.

Sorry about the formatting Mike. It looked alot better in the preview than in the actual post. The way it reduced all the images to links did make it hard even for me to follow, but it all related to your post.

What I was trying to achieve was to present the evidence upon which I rely for my speculations in the form of past posts and transcripts from articles which would be too difficult to read.

I then included relevant parts of your post with my comments in bold format.

Reading the trademark case, it is states that Berlin was established for the business of "the manufacture and sale of safety razors and other similar goods". The court ruled that Berlin was conducting that business and using the trademark on the products. Corroborating this is Marshall saying that London had to "set up an Inspection Department to check over part of the machinery production", so there must have been some production to check over. I think it highly unlikely that such a department would be set up to check over just blades, and the trademark case nominates that only part of the machinery was sent to London. Logic would seem to dictate that that part would be the razor part, not the blade part, and certainly not part of each.

Perhaps my format problems are an indication that we should conduct our discussions on smaller portions of the contentious issues in each post on a one by one point basis??

I see our problem as being we are very-cold case detectives and that after this time very hard evidence is very thin on the ground, so we are forced to accept some circumstantial evidence...or clues. I am not confident that the level of proof that you require is available for collection.

Cheers, George

I think I could follow most of that post there, George, but rather than try to quote in the bits I'm replying to here I'll just put down my thoughs here, some are just a reiteration of points that I'm pretty sure I've already touched on earlier in this thread:

Regarding the sale of Gillette's business to the newly formed British company as a "going concern": The existing Gillette sales company, which had already been in operation for years at that point, and all of it's contacts and contracts would have been enough of a business to be a "going concern," so I don't read that as direct evidence that the factory must have been in full operation by the time of that sale. I'm not saying that it couldn't possibly have been, just that the use of that phrase to describe the asset transfer doesn't require it, and that seems to be the entire basis for your supposition that manufacturing was already occurring in 1908.

Regarding the voluntary liquidation question: Nothing I've read has indicated that the liquidation process itself must be complete in fewer than 12 months, rather that the company must declare that they will be able to satisfy all obligations to any creditors within 12 months. You seem to be using that as the primary basis for your interpretation of the British company's failure, which to me seems rather tenuous. It doesn't seem like Gillette would have been champing at the bit to stand up the Slough plant as quickly as they did if the Leicester plant had actually burned them as badly as you're implying.

Even taking your reading of it, for all we know the specific requirements and process may even have been different at that point in time -- expectations of what is "timely" would have been a lot different in a world of ships' voyages and paper ledgers. There may even have been other reasons that it was advantageous for Gillette to drag out the process. They have a standing record of working every loophole available to their advantage. For example, as we understand it KCG's original patent filing was submitted in 1899 and was approved by the USPTO, but they held off paying the recording fee and subsequently amended the filing in 1901, which is what was issued in 1904. That effectively bought them two more years of patent protection on that original concept for nothing.

Regarding the German business: I really have no problem with the notion that Gillette might have produced razors as well as blades in Germany; however, I'd want to at least see something like a shipper that suggested it. Without something more than what we have now I wouldn't really say much more than it's not impossible that the "H" series razors were made there.

To take a slightly different tack, though, what if Gillette's entire manufacturing business there was something of a sham all along in order to establish the legitimacy of the patents and trademarks to then be able to sell the rights to Grell? For the trademark, at least, the primary concern of the court seems to have been the state of Gillette's German business at the time of registration. Once they'd satisfied that they could have decided that the blade manufacture alone would hold the patent, and the rights transfer to Grell for advertising the Gillette name would hold the trademark.

There's another point that I find somewhat confounding here: The earliest of the Leicester production would have been made at a time that Boston was still marking serial numbers for Single Rings on the inner barrel even while they were marking the newer Pocket Editions on the guard plate. Maybe the same machines that did the Pocket Editions could also mark the Single Rings, and that's just what Gillette chose to kit out the new factories with from the outset. But then why would they have made the shift away from that to marking them on the outer barrel? I don't like things that seem to just be whimsical, without any good technological or business reason behind them...

GBinOZ said:

Reading the trademark case, it is states that Berlin was established for the business of "the manufacture and sale of safety razors and other similar goods". The court ruled that Berlin was conducting that business and using the trademark on the products. Corroborating this is Marshall saying that London had to "set up an Inspection Department to check over part of the machinery production", so there must have been some production to check over. I think it highly unlikely that such a department would be set up to check over just blades, and the trademark case nominates that only part of the machinery was sent to London. Logic would seem to dictate that that part would be the razor part, not the blade part, and certainly not part of each.

Perhaps my format problems are an indication that we should conduct our discussions on smaller portions of the contentious issues in each post on a one by one point basis?

Click to expand...

Very true about the potential for information overload. I will do my best to stick to one point in this post, and argue that blade inspections were at least as important as razor inspections. Both parts of the razor must function correctly, of course. But a razor can be abused to some extent and still function well. It can have bent or broken teeth, or a cracked handle, etc. The blade must be as nearly perfect as possible or the shave is ruined. Early Gillette management knew this, and knew that if you want blade quality you have to test for it.

Start with the R&D effort to develop the Gillette razor and blade. Nickerson started work on blades late in 1901, according to his 1918 article in the Blade. It took months to produce satisfactory blades, and work continued on improvements continued indefinitely. Contrast that with the razor or holder, which Nickerson reported was done fairly quickly in 1902 and was largely the work of a Mr. Richardson. As late as 1918 "The final form then adopted is substantially that now used."

So more engineering work went into developing blades than razors. Does that necessarily correlative with QC (quality control) inspections? No, and eventually that engineering work could lead to a perfect blade-making machine that produces perfect blades with minimal QC. We are closer to that ideal today. But these were early days, and if they wanted quality blades then they must have had to inspect a high proportion of blades. Some Gillette advertising even claimed that every blade was inspected, but that is likely an exaggeration. In any case a plant attempting to supply demand for blades and razors for a country must necessarily make more blades than razors. The blades are disposable, the razors are not. So as long as there is any blade inspection at all and the processes are primitive, there will have to be more blade inspection than razor inspection.

Nice theory - was it true in practice? The 1918 Blade includes an article by Flanagan about the early Montreal days. He wrote that ca. 1906 the plant was "making 35 razors a day and 60 or 70 dozens of blades. Whether those blades would now stand our present test for quality I am not prepared to say; however we sold them as we did the razors...." Notice how he mentions quality tests for blades, but not for razors. From this I also gather that either the 1906 Montreal operation had no QC tests at all, or they were less strenuous than the tests used in 1918. Possibly they did little or no QC on the razors. He implies that they probably sold some bad blades early on, and he might feel bad about that. But he appears more cavalier about the razors.

Gillette advertising also emphasized blade quality as a selling point. In 1907 Gillette advertised a new blade process with the claim that "the edges of these new Gillette blades must split a human hair before they are allowed to pass inspection." Another 1907 ad features King Camp and the claim that "The great success of my razor is chiefly due to the GILLETTE double edged flexible blades" and promises that the "blade is made of specially selected and tested steel of the very highest grade". Advertising can be misleading, but I think this suggests a companywide emphasis on blade quality. It also suggests that even if there were no tests at all in Montreal in 1906, that situation had changed by 1907.

Achim has a few ca. 1909-10 ads from Germany, which also tend to emphasize the blade over the razor. For example take a look at http://mr-razor.com/Werbung/C 1909 Gillette Klinge Germany-02.jpg. This ad is rare because it features the Frankfurterstr. Berlin address of a German "Gillette Safety Razor Gmbh". In German it tells us that "Das Geheimnis liegt in der gebogenen Klinge": the secret is in the curved blade. I think the emphasis on the curve is a bit of a advertising sleight of hand, turning numerous invisible factors into a single visible feature. But the point was that blade quality matters, and if you want quality then you have to do some sort of QC: inspection and testing.

Another 1918 article in the Blade discusses the importance of steel to the Gillette business from the perspective of the Chief Chemist. "Undoubtedly steel represents the principal raw material in our own business. Without good steel it is impossible to produce good blades, and the quality of the blade must ever remain the keystone of our success. In order that there may be no misunderstanding it should be emphasized that the above statement refers to material and not to mechanical operation. We all realize that the blade would be useless without the holder and that the operations involved in making the latter are as important as those involved in producing the former. The difference lies in the fact that whereas we could if necessary replace the raw material used in the holder by some other metal, we cannot thus replace the steel used for blades." Mr. Ruppel pays some lip service to the razor, but his heart belongs to the blade. This fits with the pattern we see throughout the company.

So we see that Gillette managers, technical experts, and advertising appeared to emphasize blade quality consistently during this period, while scarcely mentioning razor quality. Even the name of the Gillette company newspaper was The Blade, not The Razor. The Berlin inspection regime surely followed this pattern.

MacDaddy said:

To take a slightly different tack, though, what if Gillette's entire manufacturing business there was something of a sham all along in order to establish the legitimacy of the patents and trademarks to then be able to sell the rights to Grell? For the trademark, at least, the primary concern of the court seems to have been the state of Gillette's German business at the time of registration. Once they'd satisfied that they could have decided that the blade manufacture alone would hold the patent, and the rights transfer to Grell for advertising the Gillette name would hold the trademark.

Click to expand...

There may be something to that, but the details remain mysterious to me. What do you think of this blade from Achim, with patent marks for USA 775134, DRP 62438, and SGDG France? It lacks a British patent mark, so it is tempting to place it in Paris or Berlin. But all the packaging seems to be in English.

Advertising could also be relevant to this question. USA advertising from this period often claimed factories in Paris, Berlin, and Leicester. UK advertising sometimes claimed to be British Made. But as far as I can tell the French and German ads never claimed local manufacturing. We all know that nationalism was strong in this period, so why not use it as a selling point?

As far as I can tell, Achim only has one ad from this period mentioning a German Gillette company, "Gillette Safety Razor Gmbh". But it still omits any mention of a local factory. That same ad also mentions Grell in Hamburg, and the other German ads from this period only mention Grell. French ads from the period feature Kirby, Beard & Co., sometimes Girault, and sometimes the London company - but neither a French Gillette company nor local factory. This seems odd.

I must say that, although I cannot contribute anything of use to this thread apart from my Single Ring serial, I am thoroughly impressed by the level of commitment and research here.
I have participated in research threads for several SEs and stuff like this is exciting and groundbreaking.
I take my hat off to you gentlemen!

mblakele said:

What do you think of this blade from Achim, with patent marks for USA 775134, DRP 62438, and SGDG France? It lacks a British patent mark, so it is tempting to place it in Paris or Berlin. But all the packaging seems to be in English.

Click to expand...

I am 99.9% positive that those blades are German counterfeits. There's an account somewhere describing a German company that had duplicated everything from Gillette's packaging -- I'm pretty sure it was during WWI -- and mentioned that the counterfeit portrait had a noticeably more "Teutonic look," was I think how they phrased it. I'm on my phone right now, but I'll see if I can't turn it up this evening.

I'm with you on the importance of the blade over the holder, too. It is absolutely clear that the blade itself was the major technological advance. Producing a wafer blade that was flexible enough to bend across the middle but was hard enough at the edges to be sharpened, and being able to do it in bulk was really the entire secret to the company.