Thread: French Malarkey

Yeah I was wondering about a few of these too. One was listed as an 1830 prototype stubtail, but only stamped Patent Temperd Steel. They gave nothing to prove any of that. Just a tag. How would they know or prove that this was truly a James Ragg prototype from 1830? Still a really nice razor and would have loved to have it just went for a few dollars more than I would pay.

I think everything on ebay needs to be taken with a grain of salt. You just can't fully trust people when they are trying to make money even if they don't do it on purpose and they think they are right. I am sure the seller was told this information from someone, but without something to prove it well it is like selling an unlabeled Thrui as an escher.

Having seen these razors in their original sale pre-ebay and having bought some from that source myself, I highly doubt the ebay seller did anything to them. I also don't think he made up anything about them himself. Everything came from a collection by some relation of the Ragg family in Sheffield, so I think a lot of 'family history' is to blame for some of the perhaps fancified claims of 'prototype razors'.

I have an antique razor I bought from this seller. Great little razor! I just don't think he's very knowledgeable about what he's selling, but I doubt it's anything devious, not overtly anyway.

Originally Posted by Poisonfox

I have an antique razor I bought from this seller. Great little razor! I just don't think he's very knowledgeable about what he's selling, but I doubt it's anything devious, not overtly anyway.

The pics are very good. I should think anyone knowing what they are looking at can see what they are buying by the pics?
Some worn, some not. Old stuff. Oh well!

I wonder if this so called archivist that originally put these date tags on the razors was the issue. I have a feeling it was a family member archivist not a professional. So it could have been granny and stories written down and passed on to the seller.

Originally Posted by KarlG

I just sent the razors off to @gssixgun for honing so I can't offer pics of the defects. When he gets his hands on them he can comment if he is so inclined.

One of them was a 1920s Napoleon described as having excellent scales. However, the bottom edge of one of them had a series of small chips. Another, an 1800s ivory scaled William Lund, was described as, "Everything about this razor is as if it was brand new." However, upon close inspection it was clear it had been honed before.

The razors are still very nice but not quite what was described or disclosed by the pictures or descriptions.

I wrote to the seller about the Lund but never got a reply - which is why I left the low rating on the Napoleon.

Just got the razors back from gssixgun and here is a pic of the series of small chips along the bottom of one of the scales on a razor described as having excellent scales. These were not disclosed in the pictures but as I said in my post, the razors are still very nice but not quite up to what was claimed. Not enough of a discrepancy in my mind to justify a return. However, it does make you wonder if the prices paid would be lower if the obvious flaws were disclosed and the descriptions a little more fitting.

Yet with like 700 reviews not one ding other than an item stolen in the mail. If items are not as described they should not get 5 stars.

Originally Posted by KarlG

Just got the razors back from gssixgun and here is a pic of the series of small chips along the bottom of one of the scales on a razor described as having excellent scales. These were not disclosed in the pictures but as I said in my post, the razors are still very nice but not quite up to what was claimed. Not enough of a discrepancy in my mind to justify a return. However, it does make you wonder if the prices paid would be lower if the obvious flaws were disclosed and the descriptions a little more fitting.

Dremel skip!