Thread: "Dip-at-toe" stubtails 18th century

Originally Posted by Fikira

Or maybe even William Lindley?

Now that I look back on it, the two Linleys in the 1774 are differentiated by an additional mark on the pipe (neglecting the fact that that mark is in the wrong orientation). John Linley has an additional diamond. However, the only listing in the 1787 G&M is John, but here without the diamond (William's mark from the 1774). It is now Lindley rather than Linley. More research is clearly needed...

Originally Posted by ScienceGuy

Now that I look back on it, the two Linleys in the 1774 are differentiated by an additional mark on the pipe (neglecting the fact that that mark is in the wrong orientation). John Linley has an additional diamond. However, the only listing in the 1787 G&M is John, but here without the diamond (William's mark from the 1774). It is now Lindley rather than Linley. More research is clearly needed...

Indeed, hence my thought it was William
I disregarded the fact that the direction of the
markings were different and that is was Linley, not Lindley, sorry about that...

It seems that John Lindley, Spring Street, in the 1787 Gales & Martin directory had a mark,
that was different (direction of the pipe was better though) then the "dart - pipe" of Linley, Snig Hill:





I also remember a George Johnson (after 1810) with such a mark:
a clay pipe with dart device (granted 1698).

I hope I'll find out who used it since 1698 (it can't be made by this George Johnson)
Will search further

Here's another "Pipe-dart", which I believe could be from William, or John Linley (if he inherited the mark, see further)



Clearly reground, but it has is (somewhat faded) "Dip-at-toe"



The dart & pipe is the same as the mark from George Johnson (although the "Pipe-mark" has a "bend"):





This mark was originally registered to one Bradshaw in 1698.
It then expired or was surrendered and reassigned to Thomas Linley, a razor manufacturer, in 1839.
George Johnson then bought the mark in 1842; he died, passing it on to his son who sold it to Lambert in 1887.
Obviously, these razors are NOT from George Johnson (> 1842)

BUT, coincidence or not, a "Linley" did had the mark in 1839
Regretfully, Thomas Linley, of LinDley in that mather, razor manufacturer, is not found in
"Sheffield records online" or "Hallamshire cutlers"...

I can only pressume that he was a member of the family of the Linley's in the Sketchley's directory 1774
Why they didn't appear in the G&M directory 1787, and that this mark has a different "direction" of the "pipe - mark",
I really don't know...
Also the link between "Bradshaw" and Linley is still to be found...

What I DO think, is that the William Linley in the 1774 directory, was the FATHER of Samuel and John,



In the "Sheffield records online" or "Hallamshire cutlers", I've found a William Linley, cutler, Sheffield.
I couldn't find a Freedom date of William Linley, cutler, but he had 2 sons,
Samuel and John, and he had apprentices since 1764, so his Freedom ≤ 1764,
and his birthyear being ≤ 1743, if John (see further) was his son, he would have been born earlier,
maybe around 1729... (coming closer to "Bradshaw - 1698"...)

John Linley, cutler, F 1770, was pressumably his son IMHO.
He would've been born ≤ 1749
He had apprentices form 1771 until 1789
Later on, there was a John Linley, razor maker, Master Cutler in 1797/1798, married to Ann Vickers.



I'm not sure, but it could be one and the same John Linley.
Thomas Linley, 7-1796, F 1803, was a son of John Linley, razor smith, appr. to William Weldon, shearsmith,
MAYBE he had become a razor smith later on...


Samuel Linley, cutler, F1772, also would fit nicely in the
"William-being-father-of-John-&-Samuel-1774-directory" idea...


SO...
Although the mark (originated of Bradshaw), is slightly altered (there is no other maker know in the 18th century
with a resemblance of such a mark), I wouldn't be surprised if that razor is of William Linley,
his mark being passed by son John Linley, then to son Thomas Linley, who perhaps became the razor maker
Thomas Linleys that sold the mark to George Johnson in 1842, passing it on to his son who sold it to
Lambert in 1887 (with a period that the mark also belonged to George Wostenholm, 1865, that "pipe" mark was slightly bend, an altering that George Johnson's mark also had)

(http://straightrazorpalace.com/show-...ipe-razor.html)

Not to detract from the scholarly theme of this thread, but

Originally Posted by entropy1049

Not to detract from the scholarly theme of this thread, but

Excellent!

Fascinating...explains a lot...got this one awhile ago 1730-1800...should be on deck for a shave soon:

Another + SMITH, in fairly good condition I believe, very clear "Dip-at-toe", not too much hone wear (very relative with 18th century razors of course) but with a special detail, the mark isn't "+ SMITH", but "+ G-SMITH", haven't see this before...

I would say (looking at the tang) <1775, thus 1760-'75?

Originally Posted by Phrank

Fascinating...explains a lot...got this one awhile ago 1730-1800...should be on deck for a shave soon:

This French razor is définitly not in the 1730 1800 area, but in the 1800 1815, the imperial crown near the R were introduce during the first Empire.

It could be "ROBERT A POITIERS", a town famous for the weapons manufacturing.

What tou belive that is a "dip at toe", is just hone wear, the steel of these early blade is very soft and require a lot of hoining, it will resulte this shape of blade.

Originally Posted by charlie48horlogerie

This French razor is définitly not in the 1730 1800 area, but in the 1800 1815, the imperial crown near the R were introduce during the first Empire.

It could be "ROBERT A POITIERS", a town famous for the weapons manufacturing.

What tou belive that is a "dip at toe", is just hone wear, the steel of these early blade is very soft and require a lot of hoining, it will resulte this shape of blade.

Thanks for setting the date on this one Besides of course it is a nice razor,
I had a sneaky suspicion there was no actual "Dip-at-toe"
( A possible French variant could be "Creux-d'orteil" ? )
so the statement hasn't been contradicted yet

Just to be sure, a "Dip-at-toe" is not the hollowing at the edge in the region of the tang,
that is indeed hone wear (most of the times)...
A "Dip-at-toe" is the more or less hollowing at the toe, the tip of the blade, and this at the spine,
not at the edge, hope this helps

Originally Posted by ScienceGuy

Here are a couple.

Some very old unidentified ones. Note the vastly different tail styles, but persistence of the hollow in the spine at the toe:

Attachment 206610

Attachment 206611

( If pics aren't visible, see pictures on top of post #8 at page 1)


For copyright reasons it isn't allowed for me to post pictures,
BUT this kind of tails,also the notch at the spine towards the tang,
are seen on razors of the 11-17th century in the book:
"Straight razors - 900 years of razor and case excellence 1000 - 1900" of "Renzo Jardella" !

If this is true (I would say that they are most definitely older then the 18th century IMHO)
a "Dip-at-toe" on a razor can be found on much older razors

This giving it its first "contradiction"

I do think it should be possible to distinguish these older ones from the period were "Lummus" is talking about,
the future will tell with the growing of this specific club I hope!