Printable View
Hi all,
I've got an old razor marked "Dicken," dating sometime around 1790-1810. Neither my books nor Google have been any help with this one. But despite knowing nothing about the maker, I'd be willing to bet money it's English made.
Attachment 136545Attachment 136546
If anyone knows anything about this maker, I'd greatly appreciate hearing about it. :D
Can't help you with any info but that sure is one fine stub tail. I'd guess it was an English made blade too. Neil Miller, Martin 103 or manah will be along and if anyone can dig up the dirt on Dicken, they can. BTW, I've got a couple of those old late 1700s pieces and I do shave with them. Just watch out your thumb pad doesn't creep past the tang. No wonder they figured out to have a distinct tang by the early 1800s. :)
Could be Isaac Dicken, a cutler from Aston, Birmingham. He seems to have died in 1743 though, which may be a bit on the early side. Maybe the profession was handed down the generations, though.
Regards,
Neil
I did find a cutler from Birmingham, named Isaac Dicken that would work for that time frame, late 1700's.
That razor is in really good condition. Was much done to it?
Those are some beautiful and well preserved ivory scales!
Well, I've got a full beard, so no shaving with it for me. Although, I know what you mean about the potential for the thumb slipping. You're a brave man for shaving with blades like that!Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
Thanks - I was impressed with its condition too. I haven't done anything to it myself (minus a quick wipe down and a coat of simichrome polish on the blade). It seems it's just been well cared for throughout its life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin103
Also, Martin and Neil, thanks for the info about Isaac Dicken. Makes me feel that if it wasn't Isaac himself, perhaps the razor was made by a son or a grandson of his.
RE: Isaac Dicken-
He lived in a district of Aston known as Deritend. Aston was a very old settlement, divided into two places, near Birmingham, Warwickshire, before the area was reclassified as the Midlands. A description of the town centre from that time describes Deritend as having "...many smyths and cutlers working in open-fronted forges..." so it was definitely well-known for early cutlery.
Isaac was married to Elizabeth. His will, dated 1742 mentions no children, only a nephew called Samuel Dicken and a sister called Susannah Dicken, who was a widow. When he died in 1743 these were the only family members who received an inheritance, so I presume he had no children and that it must have been Samuel's side of the family who continued the business.
There is an old manuscript about the early settlers of Virginia that may be of interest. A descendent of the original founder from Spotsylvania Co. with the same name - John Graves - was married to an emigrant called Susannah Dicken. The dates of the marriage, and John's early death, are recorded - but useless. It seems that they adopted a dating system based on the bible, so we cannot compare dates effectively. Suffice it to say that susannah Dicken outlived John Graves and may have been "...my sister, Susannah Dicken, widow..." referred to in Isaac's will. She is supposed to have been born in 1714, which brings her into the same timeframe. Lending some support to this admittedly 'loose' supposition is that she named one of her sons Isaac.
Regards,
Neil
Neil, I am constantly amazed at your facility with finding these old documents and your wealth of sources. :bow (You don't by chance happen to live in a library, do you?)
Just to add a little confusion to the matter (which really, we all just love, don't we?) there was also a Samuel Dicken, son of Silas Dicken who hailed from Bakewell. Young Samuel was apprenticed to Peter Goite (or maybe Gyte), a general cutler in Sheffield. The apprenticeship began in 1785 and Samuel was freed in 1797.
The razor certainly looks like one made not long after 1797, but I consider just a mention in the Cutler's Company's apprentice rolls to be pretty tenuous evidence. I can't find any other information about Samuel Dicken in Sheffield.
Maybe he learned the trade and then moved back to Bakewell? Can't find anything through Ancestry either.
Bring on the confusion! The vague and shadowy possibilities of history beat knowing nothing any day. :)
At least you've got plenty to choose from ..... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Hanlon
Could well be, Zak - the date is much better!
As Isaac had no children and left money to nephew Samuel, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he named one of his descendants after himself - as was the custom with male kids back then - and the ring became complete...
For little-known makers, I have come to regard the Cutlers Guild records as pretty useless, btw.
Regards,
Neil
Hmmmmmm..... Susannah had a son, possibly an Isaac, early Virginia... American made? :hmmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
:rofl2:
If that razor is American Made somebody will have to re-write history! http://straightrazorpalace.com/razor...p;goto=newpostQuote:
Originally Posted by sharptonn
Or perhaps that particular Dicken changed his name to Mycock...Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
Always impressive to see how much information some guys can get from the old scrolls, thanks for your good work!
Now, now, cheeky!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I agree about the Cutler's Company records. There's too little context, and far too much ambiguity about what any of it means (see, for example, William Hawcroft's apprentice record!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
Another look at Leader's doorstop did turn up a tiny bit more -- within two years of being a freeman, the Dicken listed there had taken his own apprentice, then he took on another in 1803. Both those list him as a knifemaker. But of course, there aren't any other records I can find. No parish records or burial or census. It's really all just as helpful as seeing the (quite lovely) razor that started the thread. This guy made stuff. Who was he? Was he the same guy that made the razor (or rather, paid workmen to make)? No clue.
In this case, I'm mostly providing a service about half a notch up from Google Translate on passages like this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Quote:
Dicken Samuel, son of Silas, Sheldon, Bakewell, m. dec. : to Goite (or Gyte) Peter, c. ; 7, 1785, F. 1797.
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!
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
Are you really not going to shave with that beauty? I love those old blades, and cant imagine not being tugged at by history to at least clean up neck or cheeks with 200 year old steel.
If you ever change your mind, I'll hone it for you free! :gl:
That's a great offer. But man, it would break my heart if I dropped it and broke it. When it comes to the rarer stuff, I lean toward preservation and conservation rather than shaving. :beer1:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
Regards,
Neil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanlon
Regards,
Neil
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
Regards,
Neil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanlon
Gotcha. I suspected all along my own poor reading skills were at fault for my confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
Lol - I can't wait to hear about the ivory scrounging children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
And double lol for the pun! Well done, sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
It's definitely 'mason' Zak - I have seen the record written in full.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
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
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Miller
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...Quote:
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!
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!)Quote:
However, not all freeman had served formal apprenticeships, which makes the records less than helpful. For instance,
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?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidmonster
Guess you can never be absolutely 100% sure, but I like the evidence here for everything being original.
