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

Originally Posted by jfk742

Just found this in the wild today. I have to do some research now. I’m hoping to go back next weekend and try and meet the guy who’s case this came out of. If I could find the other one to make a pair I’d be ecstatic.

Some of those strops of that style took four razors in two swing outs."

Good luck!
~Richard

Fox & Norris, huh? I don’t think I would have ever figured that on my own. Been going in circles for the last 2 hours and hadn’t gotten anywhere.

Thank you ,SG.

Those boxes are in really nice shape. The leather on this one is pretty much completely gone on the base. Unfortunately the name carved into the handle of the box is nearly illegible. The area I found it in dates back to the late 1800’s and is fairly well documented. I need to take some more pictures of it and fool with exposure settings and see if I can’t actually read it. A rubbing maybe a good way too, I think I’ll try that first.

Originally Posted by Geezer

Some of those strops of that style took four razors in two swing outs."

Good luck!
~Richard

Is there any lettering on the handle of the strop?

Originally Posted by jfk742

Is there any lettering on the handle of the strop?

No, the boxes do not have any markings. They were probably a mass produced item. If you learn more, let e know,please.

The Norris are relatively easy to find. A French collector has a collection of 7 copies. He found them all in France. Production must have been important. Your box is french

Originally Posted by JOB15

Haven't had time to read all of this thread yet but I have some dip toe blades.

One in particular sticks in my mind but I need to dig deep into the stash
I took a few pictures, one is not dip at toe has an interesting sway.
I did come across some amazing razors which I will share one day..

will post more dip at toes with descriptions when I get some time..
Cheers
Joseph
Attachment 296837

Attachment 296836

Attachment 296838

Attachment 296839

Attachment 296835

Nice! Thanks!

The second one is a George Revil https://historyrazors.wordpress.com/...revill-george/

Well done!

Originally Posted by jfk742

Fox & Norris, huh? I don’t think I would have ever figured that on my own. Been going in circles for the last 2 hours and hadn’t gotten anywhere.

Thank you ,SG.

Actually, a Samuel Norris (1745 - 1817), his parents were Matthew Norris and Catherine Fox.

Catherine Fox was the sister of John Fox, Sheffield, razor-maker (1714 - 1793)
John Fox was one of three brothers, which never married, the mark *P went to Samuel Norris.
Here are 3 razors, the first (with a slight "Dip-at-toe") is a John Fox (see spine). The second
(nice "Dip-at-toe") is a Samuel Norris (not using the *P). The third is a Samuel Norris as well,
using the *P. Since the shape of the razor, it is made around the beginning of the 1800's,
so it must be a Samuel Norris.



Yours is a bit older, it seems to be made around the end of the 18th century - 1800's.

Your box is marked by the punch of Crenet, Parisian cutler. All the boxes were not marked, but I have already seen. I have a box similar to yours with the punch of Cuvier in Paris.

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

The tape ...snip...

There aren't any true wedge razors for very good reason.

From the book linked to above:

Thank you for the description. This helped. I understand the thinking to create a "true" wedge, as this was what I was thinking before, though I didn't realize that there were no true wedges made... except through trial and error, and then it stopped. They stopped trying to make true wedges based on their own experience, and or the experiences of others.
Even with taping the spine, on a "true" wedge, the problem will not be addressed, as the tape folded down leaving the spine edge will contact before the actual spine edge..
This will not fix the rolling problem that the true wedge has.
You can't escape that problem with tape.
IMHO It would be a mistake to take a beautiful piece of history and destroy it, when the experience of others, experience that literally spans centuries, strongly suggests a different approach.
Perhaps you might take a cheap crappy wedge, like I did, and learn the lesson that way.
I will say though, that I wished that I had read this thread before doing that, and I still had a level of guilt for destroying even a scrappy wedge that could have been saved.
To each his own though, and this is simply my limited opinion.