Printable View
Hi,
In the article "Old Sheffield razors" , written by Henry T. Lummus, we can read this statement (p. 263):
Attachment 199666
Like this (Razors A (1780) & B (1790)):
Attachment 199667
In this specific club, I'd like to gather razors which has such a dip in the spine at the toe,
a "dip-at-toe" and confirm or contradict the statement that such razors are from 1760 - 1790
All pics of such razor are welcome, and razors which can be dated even more!
Regards
First one:
Attachment 199670Attachment 199669
George Smith, I believe, due to its form, that this razor is older than 1775, it could be made between 1734 and 1775...
Original thread:
http://straightrazorpalace.com/razor...th-george.html
Next candidate:
Not sure if this is a "Rowland Ann" with mark SPAIN, but it looks definitely older than 1790, or even older than 1775
Attachment 199945Attachment 199946Attachment 199947
Attachment 200083Attachment 200084Attachment 200085
Brittain Wilkinson & Brownell Sheffield (c1780-1840), Sheffield, trademark ‘France’ (Goins')
This one is maybe around 1780-1790's
I think it would be very interesting to see if there is a connection between the evolution at the tail (<1775 versus 1775 - 1810), and the evolution of the "S" shaped edge (<1775) to
a more straight line (1775 - 1810)
Did the shape of the edge also changed around 1775?
Attachment 200156
IF that is the case, we could have an extra classification-tool for razors around
1760-1775 ("begin dip-at-toe" to "transition tail / edge shape"),
1775-1790 ("transition period tail / edge shape" to "ending period dip-at-toe"),
and 1790-1800's (evolution after, with forming of shoulder,...)
This is of course very preliminary,and not evidence based (at this moment).
Also, not every razor between 1760 - 1790 would have a "dip-at-toe" in the first place, or have such a "S" shaped edge, this is not exclusive IMHO
If this idea is already uttered in the past, I'm sorry to re-introduce it!
Most kindest regards
After some clean-up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
Attachment 200662Attachment 200663
Another George Smith, with a very special shape for razors at that time!
http://straightrazorpalace.com/razor...rge-smith.html
Attachment 205846Attachment 205847Attachment 205848
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
Possibly Brittain Wilkinson & Brownell (FRANCE), and Widow Rowland (R with crescent):
Attachment 206612
John Leadbeater (ITALY) and possibly John Lindley (pipe with dart):
Attachment 206613
A few as-yet unidentified:
Attachment 206614
Attachment 206615
William Warburton (LISBON):
Attachment 206616
Whaw!
A fantastic contribution!
Thanks a lot!
John Leadbeater (ITALY) and possibly John Lindley (pipe with dart):
Attachment 206613
Or maybe even William Lindley?
1774 Sketchley's:
Attachment 206689
Either way, it fits the timeframe well!
Thanks!
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
Indeed, hence my thought it was WilliamQuote:
Originally Posted by ScienceGuy
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:
Attachment 206690
Attachment 206691
I also remember a George Johnson (after 1810) with such a mark:
a clay pipe with dart device (granted 1698).
Attachment 206683
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)
Attachment 207005Attachment 207006
Clearly reground, but it has is (somewhat faded) "Dip-at-toe"
Attachment 207007
The dart & pipe is the same as the mark from George Johnson (although the "Pipe-mark" has a "bend"):
Attachment 207008
Attachment 207011Attachment 207012
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,
Attachment 207009
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.
Attachment 207010
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
Attachment 207203
:rofl2:
Excellent! :roflmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by entropy1049
Fascinating...explains a lot...got this one awhile ago 1730-1800...should be on deck for a shave soon:
Attachment 207218
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?
Attachment 210503Attachment 210504Attachment 210505
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrank
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 :tu Besides of course it is a nice razor,Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie48horlogerie
I had a sneaky suspicion there was no actual "Dip-at-toe"
( A possible French variant could be "Creux-d'orteil" ? :D )
so the statement hasn't been contradicted yet :D
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 :nj
( If pics aren't visible, see pictures on top of post #8 at page 1)Quote:
Originally Posted by ScienceGuy
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 :hmmm:
This giving it its first "contradiction" :o
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!
This is a "genium and authentic" dip at toe on a french razor from 1810 1820
the reason is to avoid the toe to sleep on the edge.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...psbkbargr1.jpg
Here is a picture with other old french shaver from the same period, note the "Guerre à Langres" with the Royal Scepter from the first restauration of 1815, (before during the Napoleonic time it was an ottoman stick of command with the cressent, because evry reference at the royaltie power was strictly banned) and one of the most ancient razor maker of Thiers DUMAS from 1815 1820, you can also notice the shap of the scales typical from the 1800 1820 area, with large washers.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...pslrep0o4l.jpg
What is very specific of XVIII and early XIX century razors is the back that is ground at the point of the balde...I'll post some exemple later.
Here is a good exemple
http://straightrazorpalace.com/attac...y-dscn2612.jpg
Although I appreciate this extra information enormously,Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie48horlogerie
I'm going to repeat what I've explained in the previous posts
(I know, the last posts are written not so long before your reply, so you didn't had
the chance to read it of course)
What I mean by a "Dip-at-toe" is not the hollowing at the edge in the region of the tang,
A "Dip-at-toe" is the more or less hollowing at the toe, the tip of the blade, and this at the spine
(back of the blade), not at the edge
Like this:
Attachment 211638
Thanks!
Hello
I think there is a bit of confusion here and Judge Lummus himself is lost : dip at toe isn't what me call "goutte de sang" in french is the special figure of creating a dip of metal on the end of the edge. I applologize if I was not clear on the first message (I beleded toe was the shoulder arear...).
The other feature is a ground on the back of the blade but in the point area...so this is a dip at toe, with the ottaman scepter !
So this razor was made between 1793 and 1814
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...psw2eyrzqt.jpg
No problem at all, it's a tricky one, I had to read the sentence of "Lummus" a few times before I understood, English not being my mother language doesn't help of course :hmmm: but "a slight hollow in the back of the blade, near the toe" is thus a "Dip-at-toe"Quote:
Originally Posted by charlie48horlogerie
"Dip-at-toe" is shorter of course, and I thought it had a "ring", it sounded good, that's why I called it like that, but of course it is easy to get confused... Sorry... :o
But hey, the more we speak about it, the more everything is becoming clear I guess, thanks for the input, really appreciate it!
It seems that "Lummus" is talking about a Sheffield's "Dip-at-toe", the period he is talking about should be, IMHO, when the English makers made this kind of feature (I think), meaning, although the French used this feature too, this doesn't need to fit the timeframe "Lummus" is talking about.
It can be compared with the period when "fluting", or "shoulder" began, both the English and French makers began to make this kind of features in a specific timeframe, but that timeframe is different for the English, or the French makers...
BUT, this gives us again another very important part of extra information!
Thank you very much!
Here is my contribution to this subject. One is a Marsden and the other is a Roberts cast steel. Believe both are from the same period, late 18th Century. I say that based on the shape of the blade. Scales could be original and believe they are horn. Both are fairly common early stubtail Sheffieds based on my research. Just cleaned them up a bit and don't plan to do much more to them other than enjoy their beauty.
Nice pieces, I agree with your dating of late 18th. They are a bit later than what Fikira was going for here, the razors with the hollowed spine section look like they are around from early 18th to 1780s or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajkenne
Agree. Both of these appear to be similar to the photo C razor in the Dr Lummus article.
Nice pieces indeed, and very end 18th C., but I seem to miss the distinctive feature of a "Dip-at-toe", which is:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajkenne
the (more or less) hollowing at the very end of the blade, at the toe / tip, and this at the spine
(back of the blade), not at the edge (and not at the spine near the tang)
Like this:
Attachment 213258
But very nice razors indeed!
Thanks!
Thanks for the photo and additional explanation of dip at toe. Clearly these are not in that category. I will now be on the look out for one. Thanks again!
No problem at all!
Thank YOU!
The story continues here:
https://historyrazors.wordpress.com/...8th-century-2/,
were more examples are shown ;)
maybe a stupid question, but in a razor of that style if the edge isn't even with the heel is that hone wear?
I would say either hone wear or regrinding. The near-pristine examples I have seen all had either an even or slightly lower edge.Quote:
Originally Posted by tintin
Not a stupid question at all! In the beginning, when I first saw those ancient razors, I thought the same!Quote:
Originally Posted by tintin
But it is indeed mostly hone wear, or regrinding as "ScienceGuy" explained ;)
Hello Fikira. Just for information: a French exception. I think it's just a fantasy of the manufacturerQuote:
Originally Posted by Fikira
Attachment 290328
Beautiful! Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by lohar
I looked at the (Pipe)Lindley razor closely and it has a dip but that is almost unseen from hone wear:
Attachment 290786
~Richard
Just joined up to perform a bit of thread necro...
Regarding the pipe and dart, as mentioned it was originally registered to "one Bradshaw" in 1698. Typically marks were registered when someone was granted freedom/freedman status.
The Cutlers Company of Hallamshire shows a William Bradshaw apprenticed to Anthony Coumb in 1688 and freed in 1698. So "one Bradshaw" is William Bradshaw.
Marks were seldom traded either passing with their originator or, in some cases, being reserved for the originator's son.
William Bradshaw had a son (also William) who apprenticed to John Hoole (a cutler) and was granted freedman status in 1730, 1752, and 1755 (not uncommon for multiple occurrences). The multiple entries for being granted freedom _may_ be explained by his not taking his freedom until the passing of his father...1755 would not be an unreasonable timeframe for that.
The last granting listed matches the timeframe for a dip-at-toe razor...and the mark matches the description of the mark granted to his father.
The most likely takeaway from all of this is that the pipe and dart dip-at-toe razors were produced by William Bradshaw in or after 1755.
For how long after 1755, look to his father's date of freedman status: 1698. Typically a family would be started after apprenticeship, so let's assume that William the Second was born sometime around 1700-1710. That would make him ~20-30 years old when first being offered freedman status...and 45-55 years old when finally taking it (and taking on his father's mark). It is unlikely that William the Second would continue in the trade much past 70 years of age, so a reasonable window for manufacture of a dip-at-toe pipe and dart razor would be 1755-1770.
Quick followup, with a bit more detail and a more likely genealogy:
John Bradshaw apprenticed to Roger Osgathorpe in 1620. One of his sons (William) apprenticed to Anthony Coumb of Crookesmoor in 1688, gaining his freedom and registering the pipe and dart mark in 1698.
William had multiple sons, all continuing the cutlery trade: William (apprenticed to John Hoole, first granted freedom in 1730), Joseph (apprenticed to Robert Hoole in 1717, granted freedom in 1726), Christopher (apprenticed to his father and granted freedom in 1732), and Matthew (apprenticed to his father and granted freedom in 1737).
William was offered his freedom from John Hoole multiple times (first in 1730), only taking it in 1755. William had a son, Robert, who apprenticed to his uncle Christopher in 1740. Robert was granted his Freedom in 1749.
Christopher Bradshaw had a son Joseph who he apprenticed. Joseph was granted his Freedom in 1762. It also appears that Christopher got busy later in life and had another son George
who he apprenticed and granted his Freedom in 1780. This would have Christopher Bradshaw as an active cutler from 1732 - 1780 (at least).
Joseph had a son James who he apprenticed and granted his Freedom in 1770 and a son Matthew who he apprenticed and granted his Freedom in 1776.
And the list goes on. There appears to be a Bradshaw family cutlery operation in place in the Crookeside area of Sheffield from 1698 into the early 1800s. 1814 is the last Freedom date for a Bradshaw in the Crookeside area that I can find a record for (Joseph's son, also named Joseph).
So, answering the earlier question about what happened to the pipe and dart mark between the years 1698 and the contest over it in the mid-1800s, it looks like it stayed in the Bradshaw family...never moving from their cutlery business in the Crookeside area of Sheffield.
This doesn't help narrow the date range of the dip-at-toe straight with the pipe and dart mark...but it's certainly likely that it was made in the proscribed time period (1760s). Almost certainly made by the Bradshaws (not the Linleys/Lindleys).
This is amazing!
I will take time to study, it looks very promosing!
Thank you very much for this!
May I use this together with your references for my articles?
