Thread: Faux Frameback

Originally Posted by edhewitt

I would say so

Faux sure ;-)

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Faux sure ;-)

Does that mean that you aren't really sure?

Originally Posted by sharptonn

Sorry, Dave! Faux frameback on top. Frameback on bottom!

I just saw a James Johnson razor like the top one with its original box that apparently referred (not legible in the picture, but transcribed) to it as 'Jonhson's Patent Frame Back'. Just like the C.T. Bingham in your picture itself: 'Improved Patent Frame Back'.

In the E.A. Berg catalogue I found online the manufacturer does not call it anything more than 'Razor with whole, thin blade', and refers to a frameback like the Engström as a 'Razor with a loose blade'.

This is not so much me trying to discuss the specific terms right now, but considering th about the historic perspective. Manufacturers called their products what they liked, of course, but does that mean we should not take manufacturers' descriptions into account at all?

Love this pic as it reminds me of my Grandads shed with walls covered in tools made to do 1 job often

Originally Posted by Substance

Love this pic as it reminds me of my Grandads shed with walls covered in tools made to do 1 job often

Dion, I am confused, what's this got to do with razor grinds?

Huh?

I'm pretty sure there's a thread where Neil Miller sets down his thoughts on 'frameback' terminology and what swaging means in relation to razors - I don't have time to search right now but will do later unless someone posts a link beforehand.