Thread: That 1700's Show

Thank you Zak! I just wrote to them.
I'm quite confused by this razor: on one hand, the spine's curve looks indeed from the time you suggested. On the other, the very flat, wide and completely straight tail looks earlier. Plus the font is indeed uncharacteristic of the late 18 c.
The scales do look like a very early home-made replacement, but they are made quite well. Polished and scrimshawed bone with built-in two-half wedge.
And this sickles conundrum to add to it all...
I hope the Cutler's Company will be able to help.

Originally Posted by dimab

Thank you Zak! I just wrote to them.
I'm quite confused by this razor: on one hand, the spine's curve looks indeed from the time you suggested. On the other, the very flat, wide and completely straight tail looks earlier. Plus the font is indeed uncharacteristic of the late 18 c.
The scales do look like a very early home-made replacement, but they are made quite well. Polished and scrimshawed bone with built-in two-half wedge.
And this sickles conundrum to add to it all...
I hope the Cutler's Company will be able to help.

I think the scales are original. The decoration does not seem a scrimshaw but a drawing technique based on iron perchloride known in France for the decoration of bone knife handles. Everything looks ok, just that curious mark that poses a problem

example of perchlorure drawing: navaja from Thiers, France, century XIX

Originally Posted by lohar

I think the scales are original. The decoration does not seem a scrimshaw but a drawing technique based on iron perchloride known in France for the decoration of bone knife handles. Everything looks ok, just that curious mark that poses a problem

I’ve seen that marking technique used on ivory as well, and I assume it was done somewhere after it left the manufacturer.


Dimab, has there been any word from the Cutler’s Company on whether that mark is registered?

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

Dimab, has there been any word from the Cutler’s Company on whether that mark is registered?

No, not yet. I wrote to the e-mail on their web site, which is some general kind of IT address ("admin" or something). It will probably take time to propagate to the right person...
Do you have more appropriate address? It would speed up the process.

If you haven't heard back in a few days, I'll get in touch and see if I can get anything.

Got a reply from Joan saying "I have just look at the mark book and there is a Mark HavenDand - with a D instead of H. The mark MH was registered in 1745. It doesn't explain, though, how he came to make a razor." So it could have been an earlier than end-of-century manufacture, but all the controversies remained unexplained.
Unfortunately I don't have 1774 Sketchley's - to check whether this MH appears there under sickles too.

Originally Posted by dimab

Got a reply from Joan saying "I have just look at the mark book and there is a Mark HavenDand - with a D instead of H. The mark MH was registered in 1745. It doesn't explain, though, how he came to make a razor." So it could have been an earlier than end-of-century manufacture, but all the controversies remained unexplained.
Unfortunately I don't have 1774 Sketchley's - to check whether this MH appears there under sickles too.

I've just had a look through the rest of Sketchley's and didn't see a Havenhand (or Havendand) listed anywhere. There isn't a section specific to sickles but I looked through the others and the general listing.

Thank you guys! So we have probably half-century time frame, but other than that it remains a mystery.

Originally Posted by dimab

Thank you guys! So we have probably half-century time frame, but other than that it remains a mystery.

I'm still not convinced that Haven(d)and is the maker - as Zak said it would be highly unusual for him to make a razor. Did Joan send a picture of his mark registered from the book?