When did double-edge safety razors first become popular in the U.S.

Greetings,
When did double-edge safety razors first become popular in the U.S.? I read the wiki article on double-edge safety razors and it made it sound like it happened sometime after World War I, but it didn't really say when they became popular to the point that they overtook the traditional straight razors prominence. It just says: "The returning soldiers were permitted to keep that part of their equipment (their military issue double-edged safety razors) and therefore easily retained their new shaving habits." So I'm assuming by this statement sometime in the 1920's perhaps? I don't know for sure, perhaps somebody more in tune with the history part of shaving might know?
Thank you

I'm not really sure, but these numbers seem to confirm what the wiki article says:

Hello Punchy and Welcome to B&B!
Great question and research into the history of DE shaving!
You'll certainly enjoy your Wet Shaving Explorations!

"The Grapes of Wrath":

"Like to git one a them safety razors."

The scene in the book describes one of the travelers heading up from camp to a roadside store, seeing a bunch of stuff for sale, knowing he doesn't need any of it, but still wanting to buy it. So it would seem that, in the 1930s, DE razors were being sold on stores as the new technology, but that they were still seen as a bit of a luxury item and not ubiquitous.

Thanks for posting this interesting piece of information

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. now I need to find one of the 51 elusive 1903 models!

Interesting thing about the table is that the ratio of blades to razors sold was about 8:1 or 9:1 from 1913 to 1921, but then falls afterwards. In the 1920s, the patent on the original razor ran out and Gillette started coming up with improved variants which they pushed hard. It does suggest that Gillette cared just as much about razor sales as blades. If it were primarily about blade sales, they wouldn't have priced the new razors at the elevated price of $5 (vs. $1 for the older design) since they could get more blade sales by having lots more cheap razors sold by themselves and by others. But they wanted to show that buying the new Gillette system was so superior that it was worth paying a premium for both blades and razors even though anyone was free to clone the earlier Gillette razor.

coase said:

Interesting thing about the table is that the ratio of blades to razors sold was about 8:1 or 9:1 from 1913 to 1921, but then falls afterwards. In the 1920s, the patent on the original razor ran out and Gillette started coming up with improved variants which they pushed hard. It does suggest that Gillette cared just as much about razor sales as blades. If it were primarily about blade sales, they wouldn't have priced the new razors at the elevated price of $5 (vs. $1 for the older design) since they could get more blade sales by having lots more cheap razors sold by themselves and by others. But they wanted to show that buying the new Gillette system was so superior that it was worth paying a premium for both blades and razors even though anyone was free to clone the earlier Gillette razor.

Click to expand...

The numbers of the blades are in Dozens, not individual blades of course. The ratio is much higher, 12 times higher to be precise.

Why would they sell an improved (and patented) version of the Gillette Safety Razor for $1? Also, the Old Type didn't cost $1 before the New Improved. They dropped the price of the Old Type to $1 when they released the New Improved.

Best of both worlds. They had the market cornered.

Have you ever seen a Single Ring shipper for example? Guess what was the price ... that's right, 5 bucks. 1906 Single Ring shipper:

Of course. But the fact that they chose to use a premium price both before and after for their leading edge razor does indicate they weren't after a pure "cheap razors, expensive blades" strategy as some have alleged. In fact, they actively sought to discourage people from using Gillette blades in non-Gillette razors, again contravening the simple "sell the blades" strategy. The economic logic of this is elaborated in more detail in Randall Picker's paper at the University of Chicago.

Great thread, guys. Thanks for all the expertise.

coase said:

Of course. But the fact that they chose to use a premium price both before and after for their leading edge razor does indicate they weren't after a pure "cheap razors, expensive blades" strategy as some have alleged. In fact, they actively sought to discourage people from using Gillette blades in non-Gillette razors, again contravening the simple "sell the blades" strategy. The economic logic of this is elaborated in more detail in Randall Picker's paper at the University of Chicago.

Click to expand...

You were implying that they overpriced the New Improved, when $5 was already the price of their average sets. That Single Ring wasn't their high end set btw , the Combination sets for example sold for $7.50.

I think it's obvious that they had to promote razors too, though. Otherwise what would you do with the blades?

The more razors they sold, regardless of their price, the more blades people would need.

To me it's clear that their main focus ( this doesn't mean it was the only one) was always selling blades, as is today (carts), over 100 years later.

I think there is some truth to both points of view. An article in Consumers' Research Bulletin May 1936 gives some near-contemporary perspective on this business.


This approach to cost of goods sold is oversimplified, but gives us an idea of the profit potential when selling blades for 2-5 cents each. I suspect that the profit potential of razors was lower. But consider this quote from the same source:


This was not a shill for Gillette: quite the opposite. The editors of CR seem to have harbored a passionate hatred for Gillette. But the logic seems sound. The Gillette company could not afford to lose money on razor sets — or not much, anyway. But to keep the blade business going, they had to make sure that good razors were readily available. Expecting too much of a profit from low-end sets would drive market share for poor quality substitutes, which might not work well with any blade.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, by 1913 there was some evidence of increasing demand for Gillette blades and reduced demand for barber shaves: http://books.google.com/books?id=BlciAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1756 claims that "tonsorial parlors that at one time kept four, six and eight barbers busy, have, in some cases, reduced the force one-half." By 1918 the trend was even clearer to the author of this article:



The article goes on to say that the price of a barber shave had recently increased from 20 cents to 50 cents. It is easy to see how a new safety razor could pay for itself.

Another turning point for Gillette was when they persuaded barbers to sell double-edge blades. Apparently barbers made as much money from this as from giving shaves, and it took less time. Under the circumstances they were happy to encourage self-shaving. I believe this began to happen around 1910, but I do not have a good source for that.

mblakele said:

This approach to cost of goods sold is oversimplified, but gives us an idea of the profit potential when selling blades for 2-5 cents each. I suspect that the profit potential of razors was lower. But consider this quote from the same source:

A safety razor ought to be a precision instrument. It must be made so that there is the least possible variation in blade exposure. According to one expert the "blade exposure" beyond the guard should not exceed 8/1000 of an inch. We find that some razors, e.g., those sold in five- and ten-cent stores made by various manufacturers, are defective in that they allow the edges of the blades to extend sufficiently further on one side than on the other or farther at one time than another to cause poor functioning. There are a number of dimensional errors present in all razor designs. Often these errors are cumulative and cause unsatisfactory shaving performance. Some razors we have examined are so bad in this respect that the defect can readily be observed with the naked eye; the subscriber should therefore have the possibility of this defect in mind before coming to a decision of the unsatisfactory quality of one of the recommended blades. There were a number of cases where complaints made about the quality of the blade favorably recommended in last year's listings, were found upon investigation probably to be unwarranted, on that account. That is not, of course, to say that there will not occasionally be defective or mediocre lots of blades in any make. Occasionally, it may happen that the blade holder itself is so inaccurately machined that not even the sharpest blade would work consistently well in it. This defect is more likely to be a problem with the double edge blade and holder than with the single edge type.​

Click to expand...

Impressive info as usual, Mike.

This is particularly interesting. Thank you!