I'm also not sure which several of my points you disagree with.
Basically I said that it is thought that F=France, E=England and H=Germany, that the OP's razor might have been produced in France, but there's no solid evidence that they produced razors there at all, and also Porter and Mike don't seem convinced either.
So apart from choosing not to believe your theory, what was my mistake?
Could you please type with one hand, or both, behing your back - I just can't keep up with your output.
![Laugh :laugh: :laugh:](/forum/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/yellow_guys/laugh.gif)
I don't mind if anyone disagrees with my theory, but I would prefer that my theory be correctly quoted. It seems to me that if perceived "lack of solid evidence" is to be used to discredit one theory then there should be presented "solid" evidence in favour of the alternative. Porter and Mike appear to require razors marked with national patents as the only acceptable evidence, but there are known examples of other razors marked with non-national patents such as the US made razors with UK patents, so that requirement doesn't seem consistent. I have yet to see any evidence or report that categorically states that production did not take place on the Continent, but there are many reports that it did including a court decision from the time. I suppose that it comes down to, 100 years after the event, how solid can evidence be, where is the evidence for the opposing opinions and how much creedence is to be given to deductive reasoning.
I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
Rudyard Kipling
Cheers, George