I am not picking this particular serial numbering issue as un organizational, i mean over all in terms of numbering and other non serial related issues. The English system was not properly and consistently organized. Right now Porter is organizing a thread so we can figure out this numbering system once in for all. [ as he did with the unorganized Canadian number system. Right now it is to some extent more organized thanks to Porter, Mblakele and many other B&B members ]
Tuckaway date?
- Thread starter Cornishman
- Start date
I just figure if they was not unorganized they would figure out that Gillette was not using the o numbers for that particular model so they should have not used the number. It would just take a meeting of some sort to come to conclusion on that. And if they did not have the proper print punches on the machines, then Gillette/USA could have just mailed them the proper sets to keep everything in order. This would be more organizational.
Alex,
I don't understand where you are coming from. The organizational system is fine. When the first English New Improved was made it was numbered 000001Y and then they kept making them until sometime before 999999Y. The Canadian plant started at 000001Z and kept going until sometime before 999999Z.
The system is fine - the only thing unknown is what years correspond to what serial numbers. Porter is not trying to "figure something out once and for all." He just wants to get an idea of how many New Improveds were made in each country. For example if the last English one we can find is 700000Y, you could divide 700,000 by the number of years they were produced and get a rough idea of which serial numbers were from which years. (Keeping in mind production probably steadily increased so more would have been produced every year)
As as for the numbering system with the 0's at the beginning, you are looking too much into it. Probably different machines or who knows. They had more important things than that to worry about and it's likely nobody even cared about a detail as small as that.
I don't understand where you are coming from. The organizational system is fine. When the first English New Improved was made it was numbered 000001Y and then they kept making them until sometime before 999999Y. The Canadian plant started at 000001Z and kept going until sometime before 999999Z.
The system is fine - the only thing unknown is what years correspond to what serial numbers. Porter is not trying to "figure something out once and for all." He just wants to get an idea of how many New Improveds were made in each country. For example if the last English one we can find is 700000Y, you could divide 700,000 by the number of years they were produced and get a rough idea of which serial numbers were from which years. (Keeping in mind production probably steadily increased so more would have been produced every year)
As as for the numbering system with the 0's at the beginning, you are looking too much into it. Probably different machines or who knows. They had more important things than that to worry about and it's likely nobody even cared about a detail as small as that.
I mean you can't take the number from a British razor and look it up on the American series and say it's a 1921 serial number. We don't know how many New Improved razors were made in England over their full run to even really have much of a guess exactly how early that number might be. That is, our guess for where to place Cornishman's number would be very different if we knew that the series ended at 300,000 vs. 600,000 vs. 900,000.
Judging from the knob design, though, we can guess that it's not one of the very earliest, which should have the same diamond pattern on the knob as is on the handle, like this one:
Not to nit pick or anything (especially since I have never held a non-US Tuckaway in my hand), but how do we know that the Brits followed the Yanks on knob design? Maybe they never used the one pictured above. I'm not sure we can make any assumptions about this UK version based on US knob design progression. Of course, I could be way off base.
I love the idea of collecting data on UK New Improved razors. I just wish I had some data to contribute!
No, that's absolutely a fair question to ask. I don't have an example to point to off the top of my head that would prove for sure that they did start out with the older style knobs, but it would seem somewhat unlikely that they would have jumped straight to the second style right out of the gate before any of the other factories did. We've definitely seen Canadian examples, like this one (pictured below), with the older style knurling on the knob. So we do at least know that it wasn't unique to Boston.
I think you misconstrued me here. I know how the number English system is made up. But how can you determine what year the razor is from that English system? We just had Cornishman's razor numbered # 066391Y, and yet we have to rely on the design of the handle knob to determine the age. The American system date chart tells you exactly what date is from the numbers.
1921--N459887‑N999999 P1‑P679777 1A‑863912A
That is why Porter is starting the thread, just as he did the Canadian date thread. In essence why would he just want to know how many razors were made. We still want to figure out how to date these English made razors and that is part of the process that Porter is trying to ascertain.
From Porter response:
"I mean you can't take the number from a British razor and look it up on the American series and say it's a 1921 serial number. We don't know how many New Improved razors were made in England over their full run to even really have much of a guess exactly how early that number might be. That is, our guess for where to place Cornishman's number would be very different if we knew that the series ended at 300,000 vs. 600,000 vs. 900,000.
Judging from the knob design, though, we can guess that it's not one of the very earliest, which should have the same diamond pattern on the knob as is on the handle, like this one:"
Last edited:
That was a great question that Porter responded to in theory, but as always I go with his theory until someone else brings up a better theorem.
By the way , thank you for serving in the military. Your bravery is much appreciated.
- Thread starter
- #29
What about the patent number on the handle?
Doesn't that give any date information?
PAT. 133963-1917
By the way....I've just had my first shave with it attached to a ATT Atlas handle and it was a really good shave.
Closer than any of my NEW type.
Doesn't that give any date information?
PAT. 133963-1917
By the way....I've just had my first shave with it attached to a ATT Atlas handle and it was a really good shave.
Closer than any of my NEW type.
Last edited:
As porter stated, we cant pin point the exact dates at this time. But after some information gathering, serial number collecting, deductive reasoning and good detective work a viable English date chart should evolve.
PAT. 133963-1917----It gives when the patent was filed, and publication info; when info was available to public date of 1923 and priority date of 1917 when patent was first filed.
| 2. Sicherheitsrasiergeraet mit gebogener, federnder Klinge | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Inventor: | Applicant:GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR CO | CPC:B26B21/18 | IPC:B26B21/18 | Publication info:DE379742 (C)1923-09-01 | Priority date:1917-02-03 | |
I think that the heavy handle weight does significantly alter the shave result. I have a ATT/Titan that i alternate with a Stahly head and it gives one of the best BBS i can ever expect.
Last edited:
Similar threads
