Gillette Single Ring

[GBinOZ]

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.

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

 

[GBinOZ]

Regarding the German lawsuit, if anyone's interested here's a comment from one of our experts

http://www.badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?p=6549033

George, even if I had the info or the knowledge to claim that the German court "got it wrong", I couldn't, because a journalist translating a 94 yo text is not exactly what I'd call evidence. At least not solid evidence.

Just my opinion anyway.

There's that typing too fast thingy again.

Edgar, can you please point me to the "solid" evidence stating that there was no production on the Continent around 1908. Otherwise it would seem that the case you present is: I don't have any evidence to conclude that production did not take place on the Continent, but I don't find your evidence to be solid enough and therefore, on that basis, it didn't.

It appears that there are two theories. One has no evidence and the other presents evidence that is being disputed as to its solidity?

I must add that while my theory is just an opinion, but we have come far on this question by the voicing of, and oppostion to, opinions and have as a consequence uncovered a lot of evidence that can now be discussed, refuted, opposed etc. It is all productive and what forums are all about.

Cheers, George

 

[alex2363]

Regarding the German lawsuit, if anyone's interested here's a comment from one of our experts

http://www.badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?p=6549033

George, even if I had the info or the knowledge to claim that the German court "got it wrong", I couldn't, because a journalist translating a 94 yo text is not exactly what I'd call evidence. At least not solid evidence.

Just my opinion anyway.

This part from porter is somewhat conclusive enough , i think.http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...h-Patent-Numbers/page14?p=6549033#post6549033


---


That lawsuit was an important event – but the evidence we have should not be treated as if it were holy writ. The problem is the source: it was summarized by a reporter, and translated from an original source in German. These intermediate steps mean that it is not a primary source. So while it is the best source we have, a word by word analysis would be inappropriate.

Anyway you left out some hedging by the reporter: phrases like "it appeared that" and "it was alleged". We might do better with an original German source, and https://www.google.com/search?q=gill...3A1913&tbm=bks shows two candidates. But both still appear to be summaries by a reporter. They are available in snippet view only, and I can make little or nothing of them. The originals were in old style German fonts, which are difficult to OCR.

But let us say for the moment that the business about returning part of the Berlin equipment to London was reported accurately. There might have been a very simple explanation for that: only part of the equipment was wanted. The rest was not, and shipping was expensive. So it may have been left idle, or sold, or scrapped.

 

[TristanLudlow]

I find this all highly interesting and I'm reading up as much as I can.

What I do have noticed is (I saw a razor in another thread with the same shape to it, but now I can't seem to find it when I want to) that the head of the razor has a slight concave curve to it, not much, but a little.
I've seen it in another thread that had a razor with the same logos as this one, but I can't remember the serial number.
I'm still thinking about what this could mean, if anything.

Also, as this is my first single ring I don't know if this is the norm or not. The head follows the curve perfectly. So it looks like it could've been made that way.

*edited* Found the link:
http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php/132540-Rare-Single-Ring

Looks like it also has an F serial

I have taken the liberty of adding it to the Wiki, so please check that my entry is correct.

Outstanding!

 

[Borderdog]

This is a tough one for me. Three highly respected individuals with varying opinions. Edgar and Alex on one side, and George on the other. On the surface it's 2 to 1. Upon further review George's avatar is Charles Bronson which gives him an awesome bonus of 1. Now it's 2 to 2. But, that Charles Bronson avatar has purple hair which results in an awesome penalty of 1.25 resulting in a 2 to .75 opinion.

I have nothing to add to this discussion beyond levity.

Sorry for the nonsense post. I get uncomfortable when mom and dad fight.

 

[GBinOZ]

But, that Charles Bronson avatar has purple hair which results in an awesome penalty of 1.25 resulting in a 2 to .75 opinion.

If I do a bit of photoshopping on that hair colour can I have my 1.25 points back?

Cheers, George

 

[GBinOZ]

Hi Alex,

It is good to see you back in this debate. I think that this post that you made in the other thread was particularly relevant, but after some discussion you then seemed to defer to Porter. I find the last paragraph quoting Heilborn's correspondance quite compelling.:

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.

Bittuets was then sent to Montreal in 1906 to start a factory there. He stayed on as manager director of Gillette Safety Razor Company of Canada, limited.

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

This part from porter is somewhat conclusive enough , i think.http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showth...h-Patent-Numbers/page14?p=6549033#post6549033

That lawsuit was an important event – but the evidence we have should not be treated as if it were holy writ. The problem is the source: it was summarized by a reporter, and translated from an original source in German. These intermediate steps mean that it is not a primary source. So while it is the best source we have, a word by word analysis would be inappropriate.

Anyway you left out some hedging by the reporter: phrases like "it appeared that" and "it was alleged". We might do better with an original German source, and https://www.google.com/search?q=gill...3A1913&tbm=bks shows two candidates. But both still appear to be summaries by a reporter. They are available in snippet view only, and I can make little or nothing of them. The originals were in old style German fonts, which are difficult to OCR.

But let us say for the moment that the business about returning part of the Berlin equipment to London was reported accurately. There might have been a very simple explanation for that: only part of the equipment was wanted. The rest was not, and shipping was expensive. So it may have been left idle, or sold, or scrapped.

I think the above post was by Mike rather than Porter. The court report that I have is in English and not a snippet, but it is on my business computer - I'll dig it out tomorrow. However phrases like "it appeared that" and "it was alleged" are typical required legalese as the more definative form can only be used after the court's judgement. But the important thing is not a word by word analyse, but the court's decision. It was alleged that the operation by Gillette in Berlin was a sham and the court ruled against this allegation stating that Gillette had a genuine business in Berlin producing razors and blades.

If we are to accept the theory that is offered as the alternative to mine, then we have to accept that substantial buildings were built, acquired or rented in Berlin and Paris (see below), geared up with machinery transported from the USA and then closed without making any actual razors. Then half the machinery transported from the US was scrapped due to the cost of transport across the channel even though the whole point of the exercise was to fill a backlog of orders. To me, Marshall's account of the closure of the Continent being due to perceived (or contrived) manufacturing inadequacies is more logical, with the razor making equipment being brought to Leicester and the blade making equipment being left on site.

The other curious matter with these razors is the changes in marking protocol. We have some razors in each series marked with the same protocol as would be subsequently adopted by Boston (the ones in red on the Wiki). Then the protocol changes in all series to one perculiar to only the european razors. I agree with Porter when he stated in the other thread "I can't imaging that tooling up to stamp these parts in this radically different way would have been a trivial matter". So why was this change deemed necessary? While this is only conjecture, I think that this may have been done at Leicester with the E series at the time of the opening of the factory extensions in 1909 to differentiate their product from the razors from the continent which were being touted by the English management as inferior. When the machinery was brought back from the continent the F and H series continued being made for supply to France and Germany but with the new marking protocol. This seems a logical explanation to me, and we do have two distinctly different marking protocols consistently separated with repect to serial numbers. Can anyone come up with another explanation as to why they would go to this trouble?

Cheers, George

 

[nuclearblast]

George, this was all discussed in the other thread you started, arguments supporting different theories can be read there.

I have one question though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read in the other thread that the marking protocol changed when they returned the machinery from France and Germany to England, right?

So why did the E series change as well? The changes in serial # and patent info placement were common to all 3 series, am I wrong?

Also, what's the story of this H series you found in France, with a G in D stamp which was a French government requirement.

Weren't the H series supposed to be exported to Germany, or since this is a low serial number, possibly even made there, according to your theory?


Btw George, I'm just trying to understand and perhaps educate myself a bit more on this subject. I didn't mean to discredit your theory, I just honestly think you don't have a lot of evidence (and I'm being generous here ) to back it up.


I also think that the purple hair doesn't help.

 

[Borderdog]

If I do a bit of photoshopping on that hair colour can I have my 1.25 points back?

Cheers, George

Certainly

 

[lindley]

Wow, I take it you guys just do not like to be wrong. Great read though. And hey Ill jump on Georges side, I do always like a fair fight now.

 

[wbyonder]

I mean this with the utmost respect , but I feel like a snotty nosed kid peering through a small gap in the canvas, an looking in awe as two prize fighters duke it out !!

 

[MacDaddy]

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.

In the interest of not having my own opinion mischaracterized here, I never said that that was the only thing that would convince me that a given razor was made in France or Germany -- just that that would be a very convincing piece of evidence should one such razor be found. I don't disagree that what you're theorizing is possible, George, I just don't see that we have enough to clearly indicate that it is likely. These razors could have been made in France and Germany, but I can't justify saying that they probably were.

Edgar's question is a very good one: If the change in stamping is to be taken as an indication of the movement of production off the Continent, why would the Leicester plant have had any reason to change their stamping procedure as well?

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.

Proof of negatives is dangerous ground... In fairness we don't have evidence that categorically states that Gillette was not producing alligator repellant on the Continent either, even in the face of the striking lack of alligators there.

Separately, as irritating as it is, I would be careful of reading exceedingly heavily into the term "safety razor" in period writing. While it may not make sense to us today, it's not entirely uncommon for the blades to have been referred to as "razors" and what we would call razors as "handles." The common sensibility was still being driven by the straight razor where the "razor" was the thing with the edge, and there was a slow evolution to the "razor" being the thing that held the blade.

I wanted to share some pics of a Single Ring, Serial number: F959841, so that makes it from 1918 if I'm correct.

In my opinion it was definately NOT made in France as the serial number is too high. However it is very unique in that it establishes a new high count for the F series, and was probably near the end of production at Leicester.

Back on this more important issue, are you absolutely sure that you're reading that serial number correctly, Tristan? That first digit doesn't look like a '9' at all to me. It looks more like a '2' to me, which would make the serial number F259841 -- back into the zone of the other examples we've got and not such a strange outlier.

 

[nuclearblast]

Back on this more important issue, are you absolutely sure that you're reading that serial number correctly, Tristan? That first digit doesn't look like a '9' at all to me. It looks more like a '2' to me, which would make the serial number F259841 -- back into the zone of the other examples we've got and not such a strange outlier.

Wow ... good eye! The curvature doesn't look the same at all.

 

[TristanLudlow]

Yessir, due to circumstances I've only had a short time to study this razor, so in my haste I could have made some mistakes.
I'm gonna polish this baby up tomorrow and I'll take a closer look at the razor, I'll upload a better picture of the serial number and make sure to check it.
It could be that the first letter looks more like a 2 with a piece missing and not like the other 9 in the serial, good eye!
Indeed i recall it not looking like the other nine at all, so indeed probably a two, my bad!

 

[nuclearblast]

Yessir, due to circumstances I've only had a short time to study this razor, so in my haste I could have made some mistakes.
I'm gonna polish this baby up tomorrow and I'll take a closer look at the razor, I'll upload a better picture of the serial number and make sure to check it.
It could be that the first letter looks more like a 2 with a piece missing and not like the other 9 in the serial, good eye!

Be careful polishing the razor. It's silver plated, doesn't really like abrasive stuff!

 

[GBinOZ]

So Many questions, so little time.

Tristan, I had a look at my F series razor this morning and there is not the slightest curvature that I could see. As Edgar says, be very careful with any polishing that you may contemplate. The most I have ever done is use a toothbrush with dish washing (not washer) liquid, and only a light brushing.

Edgar, I haven't re-read the other thread again but if I gave the impression that I thought that the protocol changed when the machinery went from the Continent to Leicester then it was due to bad wording rather than intent. As I said above, my theory on the protocol change, which is entirely based on conjecture, is that it occured in England when Leicester opened their extended factory in early 1909. My theory is that Leicester were making razors using the previous protocol in Paris, Berlin and in the old Gordon factory at Leicester while the extensions were being constructed on that site. I am suggesting that Paris and Berlin continued using the original protocol but when they closed and the machinery was sent to England, Leicester continued to use the F and H prefixes on a "made for" basis rather than "made by", but changed the marking protocol to the new Leicester format. So I'm suggesting that it was the Leicester additions opening that prompted the change, not the Continental closures. With regard to the H series with the GinD, that would be an anomoly if it were made in England for the German market, but not if it were made in Germany for the French market.

lindley and wbyonder, while this may look like an epic battle, it is by such means that theories evolve. Actual evidence is thin on the ground and with speculation there is no right or wrong, just maybes. I hold Edgar, Porter, Mike and Alex in the highest regard and am not certainly not disrepecting their opinions, just proposing a possible alternative.

Porter, great catch with that serial number pickup. That has been bothering me overnight and a 2 rather than a 9 would fit the pattern of data a lot better. Apogies for the mischaracterisation, but I did put that exact question to Mike and that was his reply.
Alligator repellant you say? That might come in handy for keeping our crocodile population in line.

The question of evidence for theories seems to be core to this discussion, but I think that theories on both side contain a large portion of conjecture and deductive reasoning. Porter, you may recall your statement that started the whole E, F, G, H theory:
"If I were going to enter into the realm of totally wild conjecture, I might hypothesize that, as the likely main entry point into into the European market, perhaps the British plant used different letter prefixes to designate the destination country for the razor sets during these early years -- "E" for razors sold directly in the English market, "F" for France, "G" for Germany, etc. That's mostly just me talking out of my backside at this point, though.".
No actual evidence to support that this was even likely, but we have come far since then mainly, IMHO, by deductive reasoning. If we require consistent hard evidence, then the English patented A and B series would have to be attributed to being made in England in a yet to be discovered factory. The bulk of the F series with the augmented US patent would need to be attributed to being US manufacture. In fact, what actual hard evidence is there that Leicester made razors (handles) and not just razors (blades) to satisfy government patent requirements, with handles being sourced from the US or Canada. The definative evidence would be the record books from Leicester, or the English Company (even better), showing production numbers and serial numbers. I have emailed Leicester Council, Leicester historical societies and Proctor and Gamble in this regard but have, in their answers so far, received no joy. But if such records are ever found and they show production was entirely in Leicester I will be delighted to be proved wrong.

To summarise, I think that, due to the low volume of available evidence, all theories are largely based on speculation and deductive reasoning. My theory has been developed with the aid of Kipling's serving men, but it is still just one of many speculative theories.

Cheers, George

 

[nuclearblast]

lindley and wbyonder, while this may look like an epic battle, it is by such means that theories evolve. Actual evidence is thin on the ground and with speculation there is no right or wrong, just maybes. I hold Edgar, Porter, Mike and Alex in the highest regard and am not certainly not disrepecting their opinions, just proposing a possible alternative.

Same here George.

I don't know enough to be included in that group, but thanks anyway. My opinion is based on what I read in the other thread, the documents you guys posted, etc ...

Thanks for answering my questions, my opinion didn't change though ...

That's all I have to say about that.

 

[GBinOZ]

Here are is the English account of the Trade Mark case in Germany as promised in my earlier post.

Thanks for answering my questions, my opinion didn't change though ...

You're a hard nut to crack my friend. Try these on for size:

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.

Here's something that I copied from a post by Alex. Apologies for the fact I can't now find the source.

" 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's what Marshall had to say in the Gillette Blade:



This is from a 1977 publication by Gillette showing locations for manufacturing facilities:
View attachment 543966

An for your comment "I also think that the purple hair doesn't help.", I adjusted the hair colour to a blue grey. Any more made Charlie a little bilious.

Cheers, George

 

[alex2363]

Hi Alex,

It is good to see you back in this debate. I think that this post that you made in the other thread was particularly relevant, but after some discussion you then seemed to defer to Porter. I find the last paragraph quoting Heilborn's correspondance quite compelling.:







I think the above post was by Mike rather than Porter. The court report that I have is in English and not a snippet, but it is on my business computer - I'll dig it out tomorrow. However phrases like "it appeared that" and "it was alleged" are typical required legalese as the more definative form can only be used after the court's judgement. But the important thing is not a word by word analyse, but the court's decision. It was alleged that the operation by Gillette in Berlin was a sham and the court ruled against this allegation stating that Gillette had a genuine business in Berlin producing razors and blades.

If we are to accept the theory that is offered as the alternative to mine, then we have to accept that substantial buildings were built, acquired or rented in Berlin and Paris (see below), geared up with machinery transported from the USA and then closed without making any actual razors. Then half the machinery transported from the US was scrapped due to the cost of transport across the channel even though the whole point of the exercise was to fill a backlog of orders. To me, Marshall's account of the closure of the Continent being due to perceived (or contrived) manufacturing inadequacies is more logical, with the razor making equipment being brought to Leicester and the blade making equipment being left on site.

The other curious matter with these razors is the changes in marking protocol. We have some razors in each series marked with the same protocol as would be subsequently adopted by Boston (the ones in red on the Wiki). Then the protocol changes in all series to one perculiar to only the european razors. I agree with Porter when he stated in the other thread "I can't imaging that tooling up to stamp these parts in this radically different way would have been a trivial matter". So why was this change deemed necessary? While this is only conjecture, I think that this may have been done at Leicester with the E series at the time of the opening of the factory extensions in 1909 to differentiate their product from the razors from the continent which were being touted by the English management as inferior. When the machinery was brought back from the continent the F and H series continued being made for supply to France and Germany but with the new marking protocol. This seems a logical explanation to me, and we do have two distinctly different marking protocols consistently separated with repect to serial numbers. Can anyone come up with another explanation as to why they would go to this trouble?

Cheers, George

The German rulings was a long time coming, even with the back log of Working patent cases, they still managed the time to get to Gillette and rule against them. In France the ruling was done faster and Gillette had to establish a factory quickly in order to work the patents.

 

[alex2363]

Here are is the English account of the Trade Mark case in Germany as promised in my earlier post.

View attachment 543963

View attachment 543956




You're a hard nut to crack my friend. Try these on for size:

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.

Here's something that I copied from a post by Alex. Apologies for the fact I can't now find the source.

" 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's what Marshall had to say in the Gillette Blade:

View attachment 543965

This is from a 1977 publication by Gillette showing locations for manufacturing facilities:
View attachment 543966

An for your comment "I also think that the purple hair doesn't help.", I adjusted the hair colour to a blue grey. Any more made Charlie a little bilious.

Cheers, George

I believe the source was from Adam Russell Book.