Thread: The Stub-Tailed Shavers

+1

Originally Posted by MickRussell

That Elliot is drop dead sexy!

Yet another razor on my ever growing list

Originally Posted by Saxon

I know, it looks familiar
Used to be Magpie's but now it's mine! The tankard is from the 1830's, the charger from 1764 and the Wade & Butcher from sometime in the early 1800's. As Magpie said, it does shave great!

Wow Saxon that is an amazing razor! Great score. Use with pride :

Originally Posted by vvti713

These are my stubbies! the first one is a George Johnson.. i say its from 1815 (it has a really cool etching from one of the original period owners that says 1834) and the other is a J. Elliot i say from the 1830s.. what yall think?

Would anyone know if this grind would be considered a Rattler?

Originally Posted by bonitomio

Would anyone know if this grind would be considered a Rattler?

faux frameback?

Originally Posted by vvti713

These are my stubbies! the first one is a George Johnson.. i say its from 1815 (it has a really cool etching from one of the original period owners that says 1834) and the other is a J. Elliot i say from the 1830s.. what yall think?

My reasoning for thinking this might be a "Rattler" is based on the razor profile sketches from Bill Hukin:- Open Razors
However after some consideration I think we could give this razor a new profile name......the "Ice Breaker" as in Antartic exploration shipping
Those poor wiskers wont know what hit them

Just received this little beauty in the mail this week. Have been doing a lot of research on the pipe trademark and believe it is an early Wostenholm, perhaps late 18th century based on the style of the blade from the wiki age chart, its small size, and thin stub. The primary reason for the Wostenholm attribution is the number "1" on the end of the tang. That came up as part of the litigation attributing it to George Wostenholm. I understand that the pipe stem is straighter that most of the Wostenholms' that seem to have a slightly more curved stem. I have looked hard for the small dart next to the pipe associated with George Johnson's razors, but can't say that they are present on the tang but it could have worn off over the years? Don't think this is the case based on the crisp pipe stamp. I really like the wood scales in that they were carved from single piece of wood. I am certainly no expert on pipe razors and would ask that some of the SRP experts that provided previous assessments on pipe trademarks, share your knowledge on this one. Thanks in advance and look forward to your assessments.

Originally Posted by ajkenne

Just received this little beauty in the mail this week. Have been doing a lot of research on the pipe trademark and believe it is an early Wostenholm, perhaps late 18th century based on the style of the blade from the wiki age chart, its small size, and thin stub. The primary reason for the Wostenholm attribution is the number "1" on the end of the tang. That came up as part of the litigation attributing it to George Wostenholm. I understand that the pipe stem is straighter that most of the Wostenholms' that seem to have a slightly more curved stem. I have looked hard for the small dart next to the pipe associated with George Johnson's razors, but can't say that they are present on the tang but it could have worn off over the years? Don't think this is the case based on the crisp pipe stamp. I really like the wood scales in that they were carved from single piece of wood. I am certainly no expert on pipe razors and would ask that some of the SRP experts that provided previous assessments on pipe trademarks, share your knowledge on this one. Thanks in advance and look forward to your assessments.

Mine has a similar stamp and the tang check it out it should be in the previous page!

Originally Posted by ajkenne

The primary reason for the Wostenholm attribution is the number "1" on the end of the tang. That came up as part of the litigation attributing it to George Wostenholm.

That is interesting, do you have a source for that?

Here razor with the same stamp:
http://straightrazorpalace.com/razor...pe-belong.html
I'm sure it's not Wostenholm razor.

it is an early Wostenholm, perhaps late 18th century

Impossibly. Geo.Wostenholm acquired the Pipe trademark from William Hutchinson in 1843.

It is from the 1889 The Law Time, ref Lambert's trade mark. It starts on the bottom of page 6 of the 9 page pdf and gives the attribution to George Wostenholm. Try this link.
http://www.anwealde.com/razors/Pages...es_Reports.pdf