Thread: Question for English Razor Experts - Any Info on Dicken?

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

[...] far too much ambiguity about what any of it means [...] like this one:

Dicken Samuel, son of Silas, Sheldon, Bakewell, m. dec. : to Goite (or Gyte) Peter, c. ; 7, 1785, F. 1797.

It means Samuel Dicken, son of Silas Dicken from Sheldon, Bakewell (in Derbyshire) profession of Mason, Deceased; apprenticed to Peter Goite, Cutler, for 7 years beginning 1785, Freedom granted in 1797.

Regards,
Neil

So he was a mason before he became a cutler? Seems odd. Or am I misunderstanding?

Originally Posted by Hanlon

So he was a mason before he became a cutler? Seems odd. Or am I misunderstanding?

Silas Dicken was a mason (of the stone kind), deceased at the beginning of his son Samuel's apprenticeship.

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

[...] One wonders if there was, in that family, ever a Dickon Dicken? They were far enough north the possibility exists they could've married into the Glascock family, too!

Zak, you will be happy to know that in the parish register of Derbyshire, where Silas hailed from, is recorded the marriage of Richard Dicken in 1912...

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

It means Samuel Dicken, son of Silas Dicken from Sheldon, Bakewell (in Derbyshire) profession of Mason, Deceased; apprenticed to Peter Goite, Cutler, for 7 years beginning 1785, Freedom granted in 1797.

The abbreviation key in my copy lists m. as miner and ma. as mason, but I'm pretty certain I'd come across numerous examples of abbreviations that weren't listed or inconsistently annotated when the same person was listed multiple times.

But the ambiguity I was referring to was less to do with deciphering the individual entries, but what's meant by them in the context of the time. For instance, Samuel Dicken took 12 years to serve a 7 year apprenticeship. I know it was common for them to take longer, but it always raises the question of 'why?'.

Dicken is also listed as having two apprentices. Am I misremembering that the guild law at the time limited masters to a single apprentice? In any event, that whole 'round 1800 timeframe is, of course, when the Cutler's Company was sinking itself in nepotism anyhow.

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

Zak, you will be happy to know that in the parish register of Derbyshire, where Silas hailed from, is recorded the marriage of Richard Dicken in 1912...

This makes me happier than it really should. It raises the faint possibility of inter-family marriages leading to a Richard Dicken-Dawkins, at which point the line between name and folk-ballad chorus becomes seriously blurred.

Originally Posted by Hanlon

This seems to be the most likely lead, by far and away. At the very least we've got a knifemaker in the right time frame. Thanks for digging this up!



Well, I think it's a little more helpful than just seeing the razor. Although, the razor is an impressive piece of workmanship. Everything is solid and well balanced. The pins are tight. The blade's shoulder is particularly nice, I think. Whoever made it went to some effort rather than just leaving the thing shoulderless.

You're very welcome! I love doing this kind of research, especially on unusual razors like yours, and double-especially when there's something to find! That said, still don't consider the Cutler's Company records to be a slam-dunk on the identity of your razor's maker, but knowing Neil, by the time I've finished writing this, he'll have found every codicil of Samuel's will detailing exactly where his workshop was, which of his children got his ivory stores and why he moved back to Bakewell, thus proving my uncertainty unwarranted (unlike the razor).

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

Silas Dicken was a mason (of the stone kind), deceased at the beginning of his son Samuel's apprenticeship.

Gotcha. I suspected all along my own poor reading skills were at fault for my confusion.

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

but knowing Neil, by the time I've finished writing this, he'll have found every codicil of Samuel's will detailing exactly where his workshop was, which of his children got his ivory stores and why he moved back to Bakewell

Lol - I can't wait to hear about the ivory scrounging children.

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

thus proving my uncertainty unwarranted (unlike the razor).

And double lol for the pun! Well done, sir.

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

But the ambiguity I was referring to was less to do with deciphering the individual entries, but what's meant by them in the context of the time. For instance, Samuel Dicken took 12 years to serve a 7 year apprenticeship. I know it was common for them to take longer, but it always raises the question of 'why?'.

Dicken is also listed as having two apprentices. Am I misremembering that the guild law at the time limited masters to a single apprentice? In any event, that whole 'round 1800 timeframe is, of course, when the Cutler's Company was sinking itself in nepotism anyhow.

It's definitely 'mason' Zak - I have seen the record written in full.

7 years was the minimum period of apprenticeship, usually up to the age of 21 when the apprentice could be elected to the cutlers guild, ie become a 'Freeman'. In earlier times 8 and 10 year apprenticeships were common, but even as late as 1814 there were still 10 year apprenticeships being recorded. I suspect that some satisfied their masters expectations sooner than others - that's life!

However, not all freeman had served formal apprenticeships, which makes the records less than helpful. For instance, sons of freemen could be taught by their fathers and become freemen themselves without ever having served a formal apprenticeship. The same held for paupers - the parish would make a cutler take in an orphan or pauper (some actively sought paupers for the fee they were given was attractive), and at the age of 21 he could become a Freeman automatically, even if he had never been taught the trade.

This also reflects on the number of apprentices a master could have - he was allowed his bona-fide apprentice as well as the pauper. After an apprentice had served five years, the master could take another, so we could have three or more apprentices. The only stipulation was that the master had to give food and lodging. Leader tells a humorous story of two young apprentices who were sick of eating the poor gruel served up by the masters wife - it was common to only give what was necessary to enable them to work, then to preach the bible at them! The apprentice was not allowed to marry during his term, either. All work and no play.

In 1791 an Act was passed that enabled outsiders to buy their Freedom for £20 - they didn't even have to know the first thing about the cutlery trade! This Act was a direct consequence of the Freemans Revolt of 1784-1791. Similar revolts had led to the French Revolution and the British Government, seeing Sheffield as 'the most radical town in Britain' passed the Act. The Act also limited the amount of apprentices a master could have. The final restrictions - and fees - imposed on Freemen was abolished by a further Act in 1814. The flood of entrants led to the guild not granting any freedoms nor registering any marks between 1814 and 1822.

Not all apprenticeship-served men took their Freedom. Some went into other trades, some preferred to be 'journeymen' working for other masters. Journeymen were forbidden to take apprentices, though.

Regards,
Neil

Originally Posted by Neil Miller

It's definitely 'mason' Zak - I have seen the record written in full.

Can't say I'm surprised that it's wrong in Leader's transcript, but it does nicely underscore the many reasons why both of us are wary of it as a source!

7 years was the minimum period of apprenticeship, usually up to the age of 21 when the apprentice could be elected to the cutlers guild, ie become a 'Freeman'. In earlier times 8 and 10 year apprenticeships were common, but even as late as 1814 there were still 10 year apprenticeships being recorded. I suspect that some satisfied their masters expectations sooner than others - that's life!

I think I'll work on the theory, in this case, that the reason Mr. Dicken took so long to gain his manumission is because he was a very slow learner when it came to striking a mark on the tang. The grinding and hafting are lovely, but that die stamp...

However, not all freeman had served formal apprenticeships, which makes the records less than helpful. For instance,

Quite well do I recall the fun to be had in tracking a certain group of Robert's Wade. (There is some reason to think that the corn factor Wade may well have been the cutler's father, which means there's a chance that Robert Wade, captain of the volunteers may *have been* our man!)

apprentices. The only stipulation was that the master had to give food and lodging. Leader tells a humorous story of two young apprentices who were sick of eating the poor gruel served up by the masters wife - it was common to only give what was necessary to enable them to work, then to preach the bible at them! The apprentice was not allowed to marry during his term, either. All work and no play.

If memory serves, the master in that story was John Barber (fender maker, and probably unrelated to the razor maker), who also had several more apprentices than he oughta. That was the one where the kid went and fished the stale bread out of the mucky water wasn't it?

In 1791 an Act was passed that enabled outsiders to buy their Freedom for £20 - they didn't even have to know the first thing about the cutlery trade! This Act was a direct consequence of the Freemans Revolt of 1784-1791. Similar revolts had led to the French Revolution and the British Government, seeing Sheffield as 'the most radical town in Britain' passed the Act. The Act also limited the amount of apprentices a master could have. The final restrictions - and fees - imposed on Freemen was abolished by a further Act in 1814. The flood of entrants led to the guild not granting any freedoms nor registering any marks between 1814 and 1822.

Somehow, I'd not ever come across the part of the 1791 act that let outsiders buy in... That strongly suggests Robert Wade may've begun producing well before 1814! It also explains the difficulty in sorting out the Marsdens.

Not all apprenticeship-served men took their Freedom. Some went into other trades, some preferred to be 'journeymen' working for other masters. Journeymen were forbidden to take apprentices, though.

I recall reading that it was common for apprentices to ditch their masters and join the navy in order to live an easier life, which tells you heaps about the conditions of the labor. Considering the real obligations to the apprentices, it makes sense some would prefer to work as journeymen instead of masters, though I've never gotten the impression that life as a journeyman was a bowl of cherries, hence the brewing revolt that got Parliament to come and reorganize things. Twice.

One of the things I wonder about with Hanlon's 'Dicken' Razor: from that period, what does the ivory scales imply about the status of the maker? Seems to me that ivory would've been well and truly a premium material for Sheffield makers at the dawn of the 19th century. The design of the scales looks very French-inspired. Makes me wonder if it was an early rescale.

Originally Posted by Voidmonster

One of the things I wonder about with Hanlon's 'Dicken' Razor: from that period, what does the ivory scales imply about the status of the maker? Seems to me that ivory would've been well and truly a premium material for Sheffield makers at the dawn of the 19th century. The design of the scales looks very French-inspired. Makes me wonder if it was an early rescale.

There are a couple of things that make me relatively certain it isn't rescaled. For one, the pins match, and in my experience, the vast majority of early rescalers didn't worry about changing the heel pin to match the pivot. The second thing is that the rub marks on the blade and the insides of the scales line up exactly; there's no wear indicating either blade or handle was ever paired with something else.

Guess you can never be absolutely 100% sure, but I like the evidence here for everything being original.