Thread: The Stub-Tailed Shavers

Originally Posted by Martin103

Im not a Dude, express yourself like a gentlemen, fact is that there are only 4 precious metal that get Hallmarked.
Gold, Silver, Palladium and Platinum, go to this site and educate yourself. https://theassayoffice.co.uk/help-wi...-of-a-hallmark

I STAND CORRECTED SIR! BUT, I'd like to know why you brought up the hallmarks point? We're having a discussion of "Cutlers Makers Marks", in regards to straight razors, it's like them who use Sketchley for razor makers and denounce Silver Smith's when that's what Sketchleys is, unless it was yet another post trying to discredit someone and there knowledge of a matter in comparison to yours,I refuse to discredit anyone's research, only subjective statements of opinions, I'm looking for the definitive . I know about straight razors, I want to know more about older straight razors, not precious metals. I AM a Gentleman, and as such ask, What's the thinking? Why did you bring up that point in the middle of this discussion?

Originally Posted by Martin103

Im not a Dude, express yourself like a gentlemen, fact is that there are only 4 precious metal that get Hallmarked.
Gold, Silver, Palladium and Platinum, go to this site and educate yourself. https://theassayoffice.co.uk/help-wi...-of-a-hallmark

Furthermore, They did use them 200+ years ago on both. They didn't specifically do one thing, they did it all and there stamp was used on all there work. It wasn't always use in its entirety on all things because there wasn't room on things like spoons, forks, knives, razors etc.... In conclusion I subjectively submit that, the point you made is Subjective due to the Historical Relevance of the time period in question. I Reiterate "I Subjectively Submit This Conclusion: My Prayer is, Not To Offend But To Encourage The Definitive Truth " if it's possible.

ORDER IN THE COURT, ORDER IN THE COURT!
Subjectively submit this.

Originally Posted by WW243

ORDER IN THE COURT, ORDER IN THE COURT!
Subjectively submit this.

Thank You 😀!

Originally Posted by WW243

ORDER IN THE COURT, ORDER IN THE COURT!
Subjectively submit this.

If you're user name denotes that you're a Veteran, Thank You for your sacrifice!!

Originally Posted by WW243

ORDER IN THE COURT, ORDER IN THE COURT!
Subjectively submit this.

You still didn't answer the question 😕

Originally Posted by Hillbillystixnstraights

Here's an explanation of the marks and how they are used Attachment 227347

Ah, that's very handy! I didn't know Google had finally gotten around to scanning Volume 1 of Leader's History. The entire book can be found here.

Since the picture you shared isn't legible, I'll transcribe it here along with a much clearer photographs from my personal copy of the book.

Strap in, this is going to be a bit long:


{All capitalized spellings are transcribed as they appear in Leader's book, and these are almost certainly accurate to the marks that were struck}

{...} Early in the eighteenth century, however, there becomes apparent the beginning of a leaning towards the employment of names -- of men or places, or other words. PARIS* occurs early and repeatedly -- alone or with a cross, or crown, or letters; or PARIS CITY, HIL IN PARIS, GO PARIS, IN PARIS. Among others the following occur: -- ITALY, GERMANY, SPAIN, PRVSSIA, ASIA, CHINA, FRANCE, EGYPT, INDIA, ENGLAND, HOLAND, PEKIN, SAVOY, LYONS, MADRID, BREST, DOWAY, HANOVER, SIAM, BARCELONA, BERLIN, HAVANA, MARTINICO, PATAGONIA, CONGO. There is in existence a paper-backed book, attributable to this period, into which long lists of place names have been copied, from some other gazetteer, for the help of perplexed Freemen {that is to say, cutlers who have completed their apprenticeships and are considered working tradesmen}. The names of English towns were often taken, as YORK, YORK CITY, NORWICH, YARMOUTH, LINCOLN, DOVER, BATH, SARUM; and it is significant, as bearing on the perennial controversies with the Metropolis {specifically, the Worshipful Company Of Cutlers of London was none too pleased by Sheffielders stamping their city on stuff and regularly made a big stink of it for decades}, that no impediment was placed on the Company to grants of the word LONDON, with or without an accompanying symbol -- like Jonathan Hamby’s Mark {fleur-de-lys}{heart} LONDON. Such variations as IN-LONDON, with crescent moon, LONDON CITY, are met with. The later prohibition of any word expressing or implying official testimony to the quality of the article had not been thought of, and accordingly we find these assigned: BEST, SOUND, EXCELLENT, SUPER, ROYAL, CITY, BEST STEEL, PATENT, IMPERIAL, none of which would have passed muster at a later date.

Freemen often adopted their own names as Trade Marks -- as GREEN, FOX, SHAW, ROSE, BEAR, ROEBUCK, SOUTH, NUT, NORTH, SAMSON, PARKER, OATES, HOBSON, BATE, BARKER, NOWIL, RILEY, HAMMOND, VESSY, SILCOCK, BINKS, WILKINSON, ROBERTS, WADSWORTH, SEYNER, NEHEMIAH, SPUR, WATKINSON, CHARLES, ANANIAS (Ananias Rodger), BROOMHEAD, FREDERICK, MADIN, ELLIS, CAWTON, MOSES TAYLOR, CHATTERTON, HABBERSAM, BRITON (Benjamin Brittain). Even SMITH was thought sufficiently distinctive. But as time went on, this employment of family names caused such embarrassing complications that the following cumbersomely-worded rule was laid down: --

“24 Sept 1773. The Company, observing that the striking and using of the names of Persons upon their goods, together with their Marks, or their names without the Marks, causes great confusion. As there are now many Freemen of the same Family name, and others now having their names assigned for their Marks -- it is resolved that for the future no name shall be assigned to any person either consisting of his own name or any other persons name whatsoever.”

There was another reason, although it is not mentioned in the Company’s papers, why the use of proper names as Trade Marks was undesirable. In an old rhyming production of 1720, entitled “The Wandering Spy, or the Merry Traveller,” Sheffield blades, derided as rusting and worthless, are contrasted unfavorably with the excellent knives of one How, of Southend. But HOW, a local family name, was an old and popular Mark here. Before 1735 it was struck alone, by John Gray; with a sceptre, by Thomas Nutt; and with a crescent moon and shamrock by Joseph Ellis. Gray and Ellis botuh thought it was valuable enough to reserve it for their sons, and John Gray, junior took it, with the Shamrock, in 1737. Again in 1765 HOW IN LONDON was struck by John Holland, and in 1774 and 1787 Thomas Maxfield of Balm Green used it in conjunction with a cross and fleur-de-lys. It is perfectly evident that the astute Southend dealer, in claiming the HOW knives as his manufacture, was wounding Sheffield with a shaft winged from her own bosom.

The prohibition of surnames was not, of course, retrospective, nor did it bar words drawn from mythological, historical or other sources. There were culled from the classical dictionary, among others, JUPITER, VENUS, APOLO, PAN, AEOLUS, MIDAS, THALIA, CLIO, ATLAS, OLIMPUS. Stannington showed a prediliction for the poets of antiquity {houndstooth border}HOMER {houndstooth border} VIRGIL HORACE. And all manner of other words were tried -- NON, NAB, PIn, FINIS, HOPE, ONE, TRY, REX, LOVE, JOY, WAR, RAZOR, LIFE, LUCK; or meaningless combinations of letters, EWTO, EDG, PYL, ELT, GES. Some of these stood alone, others in combination with a star, cross, crescent, circle, coronet, sceptre, or such sumbol. Robert Wilkinson boldly chose IHS with a Greek cross; TE DEUM, AMEN, ACTS were inappropriately selected by others. A certain exhaustion of the vocabulary is suggested by recourse to eccentricities like BY OF ME, HATBAND, I SAY, ISSA, ENBONTEMPS, FEED UPON, HUAUH, GROVENAZZO, KING HEROD, ME HAPPY, NO CREDIT, JOLLY SAILOR and so forth. For a company troubled by similarity of Marks, RARIS seems to come perlously near to PARIS, and the distinction between AETNA and AETNA+ might, nowadays, suggest colourable imitation. Variety was occasionally sought by sinking the letters within a raised margin MATAS, RW, II {these are illegible in the Google Books version}. Such avoidances of capitals as HERO, Porto Rico, Use, did not find much favour.

{Omitting a brief section of bizarrely arranged alphabetical and numerical characters}

But that contrivances of this kind were also unsatisfactory is evident from the following record: --

“30 October 1772. Anthony Yates was charged by George Gill with striking and using upon his knives a false Mark, different from that assigned to him, {sic}wch said Mark so nearly resembles the Mark of the said George Gill as easily to be taken for the said Gill’s Mark without careful examination, as appeared to the Company comparing the Mark assigned to George Gill, to wit {2 Greek cross M, each over the other character} with the Mark assigned to ye said Anthony Yates {M 2 Greek cross, sequentially} , which the said Yates struck and used in this manner {Greek cross 2 M, each over the other character} to resemble George Gill’s Mark. The Company thereupon demanded the sum of forty shillings of ye said Yates for the forfeiture of striking & using the {sic}ffalse Mark upon two knives which were then shown to him, and which he acknowledged to be of his making -- which forfeiture he promised to pay the next meeting day.”

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that these were the components of Marks, rather than Marks themselves. The fleur-de-lys, the coronet, and the Greek cross occur over and over again in all manner of combinations -- sometimes repeated, at others in juxtaposition with other symbols, or with letters. Hearts, stars, crosses were also much used: --



The use of figures was, as has been seen, no new thing. Single figures, or a figure with a letter or sign, as 66, 93, W{over}12, +{over}2, F{over}9, 2{over}B, 8{over}9, 8{over}y, 6{over}S were employed. After William Creswick set the example of taking the year in which his Mark was granted (1748), there was something of a competition for Anno Domini. Thus we find 1749, and 1749 with a crown. William Langstaff, finding himself forestalled with 1756, boldly jumped a century ahead and took 1856. The employment of numerals was largely extended on the passing of the Act of 1791, as a simple plan solving difficulties of choice. From the 24th of June, the day on which that Act became operative, the Marks granted were, though with occasional designs interspersed, progressive numbers. Beginning, after a few false starts, at 91. They went consecutively forward until 1814, when the figure reached 3694. Convenient as this was for identifying the maker of any article, there was a lack of individuality about these marks apt to be embarrassing, rather than helpful, to purchasers in the markets of the world. To distinguish clearly between such numbers, for instance, as 2856 and 2857, pre-supposes close observation and considerable power of memory. It was indeed, admitted, in the statement of a case submitted to Counsel in 1821, that “these Marks had been considered of so little value by the holders that they had scarcely ever been used.” By the law of the survival of the fittest, some have, however achieved wide fame, and now constitute valuable properties. In 1839 Messrs. Thomas Burdett Turton, Joseph Turton and William Turton, on taking out their Freedoms, had the Marks 3707, 3710, 3711 assigned to them respectively, and as late as 1858 Messrs. John and William Hill took 3712 and 3713 as their Marks.

---

As for the second source you cited for the use of Hallmarks as designations of place on Sheffield goods, specifically this post. It references THIS post.

Clavichord is simply wrong about the marks of the British Assayer's office applying to non-precious metals, and you needed look no further than the section of Leader's book you cited for proof.



It quite clearly shows that the supposed 'Birmingham' anchor was regularly used on Sheffield-produced goods.

A careful reading of that section of Leader's book is helpful guidance in sorting out very old Sheffield marks, but it should also serve as a clear warning about coming to any firm conclusions. The records, usage and actual interpretation of struck marks from that time period is extraordinarily difficult, even for people who have all the records at hand.

We do not have all the records at hand.

It's excellent to be inquisitive and question given knowledge. Primary sources are truly the best, but as you go deeper into research you discover that even primary sources have biases and mistakes. You need to cast a wide net. Unfortunately, the history of British cutlery manufacturing before the early half of the nineteenth century is often scattershot and sometimes of low quality.

Here's a collection of useful sources for learning about old Sheffield goods, presented in the order they come to my mind.

• Tweedale's Directory of Sheffield Cutlery Manufacturer's, 2nd Edition (A bit pricey, but well worth it)
• The Cutlery Trades, by Godfrey Isaac Howard Lloyd an excellent overview of the history of Sheffield's cutlery trades from an early 20th century economist's point of view. Drier than most deserts, it's still full of great information.
• Sheffield in the Eighteenth Century by Robert Eadon Leader (no doubt one of the books that got him the sweet gig of writing the Company's official history a bit later)
• Reminiscences of Old Sheffield, Its Streets and Its People, edited by Robert Eadon Leader. There's overlap between this and the previous, but both contain things the other doesn't.
• On the Prevention and Treatment of Sheffield Grinders' Disease, by J.C. Hall. Probably a bit hyperbolic, but still a useful resource to learn about working conditions in Sheffield up to 1820. Sadly, they didn't change much until almost 1900 despite how well-known the problems AND the solutions were.
• Peak Scenery, by Ebenezer Rhodes. Rhodes was a Master Cutler in the early part of the 19th Century, and long had been a working Sheffield Cutler who made razors. Writing and producing this book bankrupted him, but not before he and David Champion bought Bennington Gil's patent for the frameback razor and made it a popular form in Sheffield, even it was considered cheap. I haven't yet had the fortitude to shovel out the discursive style to get to the good stuff, but maybe you will.
• Ten Minutes Admonition, by a Sheffield Cutler. Most likely written by Ebenezer Rhodes. Apart from being a working cutler, author and playwright, he also dabbled in the sort of politics that got secret clubs raided by the authorities. This witty little pamphlet is a direct response to:
• Ten Minutes Caution From a Plain Man To His Fellow Citizens, which was in turn a response to:
• Rights of Man, Being an Answer to Mr. Burke's Attack on the French Revolution.
• Sheffield Past and Present, by Alfred Gatty. More useful narrative history of the city. Compare with Leader's similar works.

That should be a good reading list for now.

I like when Mr. Voidmonster said, 'strap on, this is going to be a bit long...'

Originally Posted by Hillbillystixnstraights

<...>it's like them who use Sketchley for razor makers and denounce Silver Smith's when that's what Sketchleys is<...>

No.

James Sketchly was a broker and auctioneer living in Bristol, number 27 Small Street. He published directories of Bristol and Sheffield with intent of creating new ones annually, but never followed through after the first editions.

The directories collected all trades and served as directories of businesses.

Here is a much abbreviated list of other directories.

Originally Posted by Hillbillystixnstraights

Furthermore, They did use them 200+ years ago on both. They didn't specifically do one thing, they did it all and there stamp was used on all there work. It wasn't always use in its entirety on all things because there wasn't room on things like spoons, forks, knives, razors etc.... In conclusion I subjectively submit that, the point you made is Subjective due to the Historical Relevance of the time period in question. I Reiterate "I Subjectively Submit This Conclusion: My Prayer is, Not To Offend But To Encourage The Definitive Truth " if it's possible.

The ones that are made of silver are all hallmarked.