Thread: The Stub-Tailed Shavers

Originally Posted by Hillbillystixnstraights

HAHAHAH �� I don't think it's the logic but the conversation which has become circular. Like, wher did I say hallmarks? Crown, Castle, Anchor are cutler marks indigenous to the place of registration. Hallmarks are familiar but there called city/ assay marks.

Do you have any sources to back up that assertion besides that one post here which I have already illustrated is incorrect?

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

Do you have any sources to back up that assertion besides that one post here which I have already illustrated is incorrect?

WOW😕 If you're wiser than the developer of this forum maybe you should start your own forum so we don't have to be subjected to your insufferable brilliance. I'm HAPPY you chose me to try to display it! I feel bad for the other new people that you choose to puke you're opinion on. We might lose them because of people JUST LIKE YOU!

Originally Posted by Hillbillystixnstraights

WOW�� If you're wiser than the developer of this forum maybe you should start your own forum so we don't have to be subjected to your insufferable brilliance. I'm HAPPY you chose me to try to display it! I feel bad for the other new people that you choose to puke you're opinion on. We might lose them because of people JUST LIKE YOU!

This post
was indeed put there by one of the software developers of this site.

He is not stating his opinion.

He is quoting a much earlier post by another user. TWO POSTS DOWN he is corrected by Neil Miller.

The post Slartibartfast quoted is this post.

That post is wrong.

I'm not ragging on Slartibartfast or Clavichord for being wrong. There's no sin in being wrong! Search for my posts here and you'll find BUCKETS of wrong coming from my keyboard.

You're probably misunderstanding my tone because I'm not talking about any of the people who've said things here, but rather the things they've said. The distinction is subtle and important, and no doubt another boring lecture to you, but it's very important to understand if you actually care about the truth that you claim to be searching for.

You will find MANY contradictory pieces of information and you have to weigh them against other pieces of information.

I'm sure you're angry at me because you think I'm being superior at you, but I am not. I'm trying to give you the tools to be on the same footing.

So maybe dial back the indignation and read what I've posted here as though you believe I am trying to share useful information with you. LOOK AT THAT INFORMATION.

Weigh it against other things you know.

Don't worry though, because you won't get any further lectures from me.

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

This post
was indeed put there by one of the software developers of this site.

He is not stating his opinion.

He is quoting a much earlier post by another user. TWO POSTS DOWN he is corrected by Neil Miller.

The post Slartibartfast quoted is this post.

That post is wrong.

I'm not ragging on Slartibartfast or Clavichord for being wrong. There's no sin in being wrong! Search for my posts here and you'll find BUCKETS of wrong coming from my keyboard.

You're probably misunderstanding my tone because I'm not talking about any of the people who've said things here, but rather the things they've said. The distinction is subtle and important, and no doubt another boring lecture to you, but it's very important to understand if you actually care about the truth that you claim to be searching for.

You will find MANY contradictory pieces of information and you have to weigh them against other pieces of information.

I'm sure you're angry at me because you think I'm being superior at you, but I am not. I'm trying to give you the tools to be on the same footing.

So maybe dial back the indignation and read what I've posted here as though you believe I am trying to share useful information with you. LOOK AT THAT INFORMATION.

Weigh it against other things you know.

Don't worry though, because you won't get any further lectures from me.

Please forgive me if I've come across as angry. I am not I assure you, I would just stop if that was the case. I'm truly more interested in the truth more than anything else. I believe first and foremost that I probably wasn't conveying my message across as I truly wanted to. We do need to consider the new guys/ gals to the forum for the first time, in order that we might be more helpful (ME INCLUDED). Sir, PLEASE continue, I Bow Out! (I'll be back after I've thought this one over a little harder) GOD BLESS 😊

Originally Posted by Hillbillystixnstraights

Please forgive me if I've come across as angry. I am not I assure you, I would just stop if that was the case. I'm truly more interested in the truth more than anything else. I believe first and foremost that I probably wasn't conveying my message across as I truly wanted to. We do need to consider the new guys/ gals to the forum for the first time, in order that we might be more helpful (ME INCLUDED). Sir, PLEASE continue, I Bow Out! (I'll be back after I've thought this one over a little harder) GOD BLESS ��

No hard feelings at all!

It's clear you love and are interested in the history of these little bits of steel we get all worked up about around here, and I cannot help but feel kinship there.

Originally Posted by Hillbillystixnstraights

WOW�� If you're wiser than the developer of this forum maybe you should start your own forum so we don't have to be subjected to your insufferable brilliance. I'm HAPPY you chose me to try to display it! I feel bad for the other new people that you choose to puke you're opinion on. We might lose them because of people JUST LIKE YOU!

This type of post is pretty out of place on SRP. This is a place where even when folks have disagreements, they typically conduct them without malice, sarcasm, or personalization, and in a generally gentlemanly fashion.

Maybe forums you've frequented prior to SRP condone this kind of tone when having disagreements in public. Due simply to the high quality of folks here on SRP, this is not a problem for us.

My suggestion to you as a new member would be to lurk for a bit before posting anymore and kind of get a feel for the pulse of the forum.

To continue responding to challenges to your statements in such a manner will probably result in your opinions and positions (correct or not) becoming seeds which will find no purchase, and hence, scattered by the winds.

We do a lot of peer review here.

Yeah can we get back to posting pics of stub-tails and not this banter?

Agreed!

Originally Posted by sqzbxr

Agreed!

100%

Originally Posted by TwistedOak

Yeah can we get back to posting pics of stub-tails and not this banter?

Ann Rowland and Elizabeth Rowland.

Ann's razor is the one on top and Elizabeth's is on the bottom.

These are really remarkable, not just because they were made by women (and both Elizabeth and Ann Rowland were cutlers in their own right -- Ann even apprenticed one of her sons) but also because they worked at around the same time and don't appear to be directly related to each other!

Ironically, despite the fact that Elizabeth seems to have been working longer -- she shows up both in Sketchley's and in Gales & Martin, though there she's listed as 'Widow Roland' in G&M -- there's considerably more information about Ann Rowland.

Ann was married to a man named Sleigh Rowland, also a razor grinder (at least if the Apprentice registries are to be believed), and they had a gaggle of children including a handful of sons all apprenticed into various cutlery trades: Joseph, Michael, Robert, Sleigh and Thomas.

Sorting out which is which and who is who is ... challenging.

Joseph Rowland is recorded as the son of Sleigh Rowland (deceased razor grinder), entering into his apprenticeship in 1797, apprenticed to his mother, but also someone named simply Robert, also a razor grinder.

Mind, a razor grinder is different from a razor maker. All the grinders did was the hardest part of the job. The razor makers paid the grinders to do the making. Plus the hafters, polishers, and setters-in. Presumably back then the razor makers actually had been trained in grinding as well. Presumably.

In any event, one of the men named Sleigh was not hugely well liked.

Gales & Martin lists him at the very end, in the alphabetical list, naming him only "Sleigh ---------" cock weapon maker, Pond Lane." Some of the apprentice listings for his children include no information about him other than his name.

Even in late 1700's Sheffield, cock fighting was considered kind of icky -- and this is remarkable because Bear Baiting remained a popular sport well into the 1800's, as well as the semi-annual practice of rounding up all stray dogs and beating them to death with rocks for fun.

Old Sheffield was a weird place, weird enough that despite a thick air of chauvinism, these two razors were made by women.